It’s only time till Apple starts pushing ads or more of it. Privacy by Apple’s definition is that’s fluid one or not considering being silent of the CSAM ordeal.
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
I believe iOS supports external game controllers and with an HDMI adapter both of you can share in game play on a big screen via an iPad or iPhone. Now if the device is too old for said iOS update that is another issue where that device will either be disposed off or replaced in either case still better value and flexibility compared to an AppleTV.
My 3 year old plays on their iPad and knows how to use it well for many educational content. The 5 year old does the same. The 1.5 year old does not seem to be interested yet. Every child differs in certain things.
I acknowledge that, "it bugs some some [...] people that Apple has removed essential use accessories". Though, whether you realize it or not - Apple is not the trend setter here. The charger has been excluded from countless USB products, prior to the iPhone 11, without problem. As far as thinking of the first time buyers: Whether it is literally their first usb electronical purchase or instead their first cellular phone purchase -- they are going to be far better served with a proper multi-port USB a+c charger as they're going to accumulate far more USB powered devices.
You're concerned about having something taken away from you. You make the argument that this is not about tree hugging, saving the earth, preserving precious resources, but instead about greed and self-enrichment because Apple wants to drive iPhone owners to buy THEIR chargers and cable. So as a thought exercise: hypothetically take that out.
Apple chooses to no longer make any money off iPhone chargers and iPhone cables, because they no longer manufacture them and they either entirely abandon MFI licensing and royalties or they donate all proceeds from MFI to preservation, reforestation, cleaning up the oceans, etc.
Is the customer screwed over and worse off in this scenario? Will they end up with a better charger and higher quality cables that will better equip them for the future where they obtain other USB power devices?
It's a close to or over $1000 so, "Don't be a dick and allow customers to have A charger." Ok, that seems like it'd be super easy for any non-Apple competitor to plant a flag on, "Hey, we're not dicks like Apple. We'll give you a charger and cable, for free, if you want with your purchase." I mean, talk about engendering goodwill and drawing customers away from that greedy and anti-consumer business. Any of Apple competitors could use this to put pressure on Apple.
Or maybe consumers on the whole don't get chuffed about this and it's just a made up concern?
I can do you two better:
I walked into an Apple store with a circa-2009 iMac (purchased a day or a few after Snow Leopard release). The iMac was well outside of even it's AppleCare warranty. I wanted to buy a new iMac and a friend of mine wanted to buy my current iMac from me. What I was asking Apple to do, which I was more then willing to pay for their service, was to open the current iMac and dust it out. The Apple agent told me that's not really a service that just stand alone by itself that they could provide, but said, I'll write up the request up as: loud fan noise, inspect and advise customer.
They call me up a day or two later and said, unfortunately, as they were disassembling the iMac the technician snapped off one of the SATA connectors. The agent told me, but no don't worry about that: We're just going to replace the whole entire computer. No charge. It gets you back on the road faster, besides - it was our fault. I showed up the next day and the manager came out to apologize to me and said, we can give you "x" new iMac. I mentioned my (3 year old) iMac was a Build-to-Order with the top end video card from it's day. "x" new iMac's internal graphics would be far worse. He said: OK, We'll give you the top of the line current iMac. All I had to pay for was AppleCare on the new iMac.
Other time: I came in with an iPhone 7 (which I had -NOT- purchased AppleCare for) like 1 week outside of the 1 year warranty. I largely forget what the problem was, but it was something to do with stable operation of the phone. I had done lots of troubleshooting myself, explained that to the Apple agent. I said, I know its just outside of warranty so I just want to know what the cost for a swap out is. They worked on the phone were able to reproduce the problem. I explained why I was hesitant to upgrade it to the new version of iOS. They understood but said, well, it's the only thing we've not tried. "With your permission, I'd like to upgrade it" to which I said sure. They went ahead and it just made things worse.
She talked to her manager and agreed it was likely a hardware failure of some sort, but since it was unusable now and so close to warranty that it would be covered as if it was under warranty. No, I wasn't upgraded to the iPhone 8 - but, I didn't care. And I more then agreed to purchase AppleCare on the replacement iPhone 7.
Both cases: just gobsmacked. I'll take this service goodwill and service over worrying about an inbox charger.
This is just a principles thing at this point. Which is fine - but, it's rather besides the point, if you're going to be taken care of otherwise after your purchase. Sure, I get it. It'd be great to have both. But, if just like in your own experience or, in my case, they're gonna flex the rules a bit to go in your favor. 100% drop the charger or drop the cable.
Now that said, not everyone has been treated the same way you and I have been. But, this charger / cable thing just not the hill to die on, IMO, of course.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I can appreciate the impressive "defense" opinion.
I come back to goodwill. You either build it up or you cut it down. This decision cuts it for some people. It matters enough to enough consumers that a whole country GOVERNMENT has got involved to force Apple to provide such things to all buyers, undermining Apples goal of "save the environment). Another whole collection of countries have got involved to force Apple towards going with a standardized vs. (more profitable to Apple) proprietary port. This is what happens when many consumers are frustrated... and more of it follows as more are frustrated by such policies.
The trick about "not the hill to die on" vs. corporate penny pinching is that every little pinch can be spun as not the hill to die on. Took out a very useful headphone jack? That's not a hill to die on because... (rationale). Took out earbuds? That's not a hill to die on because... (rationale). Took out charging cable & brick because... (rationale). Let that play out over time and eventually we are paying iPhone prices for an empty box.
But back to goodwill. My opinion- which if turned into actual action- does not benefit me in any way, as I have several bricks and plenty of cables- is that Apple can kill lots of badwill with a simple change of policy: shift the push for what they are spinning here (environment) to the consumer at point of sale. If consumer wants a brick and/or cable, they check a box below a good pitch to only check such boxes if they really need them. Else, consumers with bricks- like me and you and many others- willing to support Apple pro-environmental stance can leave those boxes unchecked and NOT take a brick or cable. I also don't check boxes to add pencils or cases or other options available during purchasing, so this would be no different.
Yes, such a policy change will likely result in people who actually do need them, getting them... and some people who don't need them but like free stuff getting them too... and then the rest of us leave it exactly as it is: no brick and no cable in support of the environment. To GOVs, Apple can much more easily defend by showing they give one to anyone who requests it in a purchase... backing GOVs off from feeling compelled to get involved on behalf of consumers on issues like this.
Costs to Apple? Nominal. They make both anyway to SELL and I'm sure their purchasing power gets both for not too far from nothing. And yes, there may be some opportunity loss in those people who would have paid extra to buy either or both from Apple. But both would be the cost of increased goodwill. No angry Apple product buyers over this issue. No need for GOVs to get involved. Every other buyer is supporting Apple's call to benefit the environment.
Everybody wins for a fraction of the cost of including both in every box.
Corporate goodwill is a good thing. Happy customers talk about their happy experience with other potential buyers of similar stuff. On the other hand, frustrated buyers tend to more LOUDLY gripe about what is easily viewed as greedy, penny-pinching (of necessities) to their reach of contacts.
If it was MY call, I'd adopt this policy because I'd rather spend a tiny bit of cash to buy that goodwill than look so greedy to a slice of my buyers that even some GOVs feel compelled to get involved to make me change our ways. Else, only more of the latter will follow as Apple continues to grow. Every company that gets huge and then starts pinching consumers in what can be viewed as anti-consumer actions attracts the attention of GOV and then the unlimited resources of GOV to fight for the benefit of the consumers (voters) angry about such actions by super-rich companies.
If this was purely a move to "save the earth," I applaud any such move. However, any objective view of this kind of issue can see monetary benefit as a possible motivator, and that's all it takes to burn goodwill even among very faithful fans. Simple policies like this (idea) resolve it completely at very little cost... while still "saving the earth" with all of the buyers who opt to NOT take things they don't need at time of purchase.
I come back to goodwill. You either build it up or you cut it down. This decision cuts it for some people. It matters enough to enough consumers that a whole country GOVERNMENT has got involved to force Apple to provide such things to all buyers, undermining Apples goal of "save the environment). Another whole collection of countries have got involved to force Apple towards going with a standardized vs. (more profitable to Apple) proprietary port. This is what happens when many consumers are frustrated... and more of it follows as more are frustrated by such policies.
The trick about "not the hill to die on" vs. corporate penny pinching is that every little pinch can be spun as not the hill to die on. Took out a very useful headphone jack? That's not a hill to die on because... (rationale). Took out earbuds? That's not a hill to die on because... (rationale). Took out charging cable & brick because... (rationale). Let that play out over time and eventually we are paying iPhone prices for an empty box.
But back to goodwill. My opinion- which if turned into actual action- does not benefit me in any way, as I have several bricks and plenty of cables- is that Apple can kill lots of badwill with a simple change of policy: shift the push for what they are spinning here (environment) to the consumer at point of sale. If consumer wants a brick and/or cable, they check a box below a good pitch to only check such boxes if they really need them. Else, consumers with bricks- like me and you and many others- willing to support Apple pro-environmental stance can leave those boxes unchecked and NOT take a brick or cable. I also don't check boxes to add pencils or cases or other options available during purchasing, so this would be no different.
Yes, such a policy change will likely result in people who actually do need them, getting them... and some people who don't need them but like free stuff getting them too... and then the rest of us leave it exactly as it is: no brick and no cable in support of the environment. To GOVs, Apple can much more easily defend by showing they give one to anyone who requests it in a purchase... backing GOVs off from feeling compelled to get involved on behalf of consumers on issues like this.
Costs to Apple? Nominal. They make both anyway to SELL and I'm sure their purchasing power gets both for not too far from nothing. And yes, there may be some opportunity loss in those people who would have paid extra to buy either or both from Apple. But both would be the cost of increased goodwill. No angry Apple product buyers over this issue. No need for GOVs to get involved. Every other buyer is supporting Apple's call to benefit the environment.
Everybody wins for a fraction of the cost of including both in every box.
Corporate goodwill is a good thing. Happy customers talk about their happy experience with other potential buyers of similar stuff. On the other hand, frustrated buyers tend to more LOUDLY gripe about what is easily viewed as greedy, penny-pinching (of necessities) to their reach of contacts.
If it was MY call, I'd adopt this policy because I'd rather spend a tiny bit of cash to buy that goodwill than look so greedy to a slice of my buyers that even some GOVs feel compelled to get involved to make me change our ways. Else, only more of the latter will follow as Apple continues to grow. Every company that gets huge and then starts pinching consumers in what can be viewed as anti-consumer actions attracts the attention of GOV and then the unlimited resources of GOV to fight for the benefit of the consumers (voters) angry about such actions by super-rich companies.
If this was purely a move to "save the earth," I applaud any such move. However, any objective view of this kind of issue can see monetary benefit as a possible motivator, and that's all it takes to burn goodwill even among very faithful fans. Simple policies like this (idea) resolve it completely at very little cost... while still "saving the earth" with all of the buyers who opt to NOT take things they don't need at time of purchase.
Last edited:
Not sure I have understood the point you are trying to make but if it is that plugging in an old phone with an HDMI is a better solution for playing games than a dedicated box then I’d have to disagree. Especially when the AppleTV also serves up all of our TV apps, Fitness+, Zwift, Music, etc and is usable by anyone in the house with a simple remote control.
Where can I find more of these “Apple is always right” people? Because it often feels like virtually everyone is just bashing Apple 24/7. 🫠
I'm more then happy to let the consumers decide who they want to support with their purchase. Moreover, I'm happy to encourage any mobile phone maker to court said customers. If Apple is being petty by excluding a charger, then why not take the opportunity to build bridges those disenfranchised Apple customers, anyone brand new to mobile phones, or retain the loyalty of current customers. No one needs Apple to trendset goodwill, right? Heck, your checkout "checkbox" option even allows them to co-opt Apple's messaging.
Samsung started out on this path, ridiculing Apple, and seemingly planting a flag that they will continue to box, at least, -A- charger and not follow in Apples footsteps. But, for whatever reason decided that wasn't for them. Ok, that's just Samsung and they rather have prior history there.
That said, the ball was more then in the court for anyone else to pickup and run with it. But, in the US, is One+ the only retail brand to include -any- charger, anymore, let alone a fast charger?
Point is, as you say, the customer demand for essential accessories should be there. So why is almost no mobile phone maker desiring the goodwill of filling that demand?
I'm not opposed to Brazil mandating the inclusion of a charger. If it really was the citizenry initiative in response to iPhone 11 / 12 excluding the charger - more power to them. Maybe USB chargers aren't as common there. Or maybe USB chargers are not as inexpensive in Brazil. Maybe members of the Brazillian legislature itself were just incensed themselves. Maybe it's all of them, not that it super matters regardless, but I've not be able google much as to what the genesis behind their "act 5159" that mandated it. Just a curiosity.
Where as I was able to seemingly dig up a bit more on the EU side of things. Everyone wants Apple to move to USB-c and as you point out it's frustrating that they aren't moving faster. So EU parliament to the rescue right? Frustrated citizens united in a common charge to mandate Apple to change! Huzza! Right?
Well, here's the perhaps the original motion from some committee or maybe a bunch of individual EU representatives. It's a quick read 3 pages with a plenty of white space. But, there's no way that this motion for a resolution is derived from an enraged citizenry voicing their concerns or any number of personally aggrieved EU reps that want to fix the problem through law or regulation. If it was, the motion would be straight to the point. It'd say, the problem is that the charge socket needs to be standardized all devices. So figure it out and pick a standard connector for everyone to use: Make it USB-c.
But, instead the authors of the motion are expressing concern that the EU is "not exploiting its full potential, and continuing fragmentation of the market for chargers for mobile phones and other small and medium-sized electronic devices" -- that is their concern is not that Apple continues to use Lightening. Their concern, the focus of the motion is on the charger. That mobile phones and small-medium size electronics don't have a standardized charger.
Excuse me, but what mobile phone in the past 10 years doesn't utilize USB charging on the charge block? Maybe the phone is using Mini or Micro USB, or 30-pin connector, Lightening, or USB-c in the most recent phones. But they all are standardized on using USB charger. Whether you have a Samsung, an iPhone, Google Pixel, a Motorola, some old Windows phone, or a really old HTC or such - any of those phones can use the charger from any of these other phones and charge itself, at least, at standard USB speed.
The motion goes on to yap about: "whereas consumers are still having to acquire different chargers when buying new devices from different sellers, and are obliged to buy a new charger when purchasing a new device from the same seller" -- "whereas consumers own, use and often carry with them many different chargers for similar battery-operated devices" -- "Emphasises the need for a standard for a common charger for mobile radio equipment to be adopted as a matter of urgency in order to avoid further internal market fragmentation" -- "Urges the Commission to ensure that consumers are no longer obliged to buy new chargers with each new device, thereby reducing the volume of chargers produced per year"
This motion is from January 2020! This would make more sense if it were circa 2007 where the charging standards were all over the place. In line with the EU motion here the same Apple charger from 14-15 years ago that shipped with and charged the original iPhone 1 will still charge an iPhone 14 today! Moreover, they're practically mandating the Apple exclude the in-box charger. Which Apple either was already doing or would shortly be...
If EU citizenry is piping hot and angry that their essential phone charger is being ripped out of their phone box - It's the EU Parliament itself leading the charge!
Ok, but these are easy things for any non-apple competitor to let Apple just hang itself by. If so many consumers want or are demanding power cube chargers -- Google, Samsung, Motorola, they don't need a permission slip from Apple or anyone else. The easy win for them is to just provide what is frustrating customers and / or what is frustrating Apple customers. Fill the void that Apple has created - quench the thirst of the frustrated consumers. Offer them what they want. The sales will explode.
I mean, really ..... are the cost savings to Google, Samsung, Motorolla, etc by excluding the headphone jack, excluding the earbuds, excluding the charge brick & cable, etc - that huge and that advantageous that they can confidently ignore their customers?
You're preaching to the choir about goodwill. I just feel the more important goodwill is what happens when a customer has a problem with their Apple product. You, CarlJ, myself, and other have had situations where Apple would have been more then in their right to either charge us out-of-warranty pricing for repair work - but instead looked the other way and covered the problem under warranty.
What's more important? Quality products that last, are supported well, and when things go wrong get taken care of?
Last edited:
Hi Ryan
With you on this one! Although as others have noted, it is unlikely to get a look-in from Apple.
The real glaring omission is audio above 48kHz. Given Apple Music advertises track availability in 24-bit/192kHz, it is very poor that 192kHz isn't supported by the new 2022 ATV.
Unfortunately, having reviewed a large number of posts here on MacRumors about the ATV, it would appear the large majority of people really only use the ATV to provide an incremental improvement on the UI of their smart TV. That is not in any way criticizing those purchases/usages (I am in the same position!) - but it does mean Apple can get away with charging a healthy price for a device that really doesn't give much added functionality over what a decent TV is already capable of.
Hi Darryl
Whilst great that Apple helped you out, outside the warranty period, a charger should NEVER pop/crackle. This clearly indicates a faulty or poorly-made product from Apple (unless you severely mistreated it), no matter how old it is. This is inexcusable with the high prices Apple charges for chargers.
Personally, I wouldn't be looking on it as being happy that you got a free replacement, but rather, annoyed that Apple gave you a dud in the first place, and placed you, your family, your home contents and your home at risk of perishing in a fire.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The point of the post was not to praise what was obviously a defective charger getting replaced but to illustrate that Apple clearly has it in them... and that goodwill moves like that matter, last and lead to those experiencing it talking up a company and their products to others. One might say goodwill is a very tangible way to EARN the halo the fans put around any company they appreciate. For ZERO compensation, I've sold a WHOLE lot of Apple stuff for Apple to friends & family on my own enthusiasm for the brand & product mix. Why? That's the tangible ROI of goodwill in action.
Making decisions that chip away at goodwill (especially those that seem obviously self-serving) has the opposite effect... typically yielding a LOUDER crowd expressing their disappointment and spreading that negative to others. I don't read that as trolling or competitor shills... but very tangible disappointment from fellow Apple consumers made unhappy at something so easily, cheaply and fully resolvable with a simple change of retail policy.
Unfortunately, that is only a single opinion of an Apple (nearly everything) consumer and not an Apple corp decision-maker actually able to do something about this issue. Personally, I have plenty of bricks and cables so there would be nothing in this hypothetical policy change for me at all... but I can certainly appreciate the aggravation of opening up a beautifully-packaged <whatever> from the great & powerful Apple to discover that I immediately need to spend some more money to get fundamentals required to fully use it. The general image of the Apple brand I hold dear and that kind of customer experience do not mesh in my mind of how it SHOULD be. The idyllic Apple I imagine and the reality clash on simple corporate choices like this one.
Obviously, if I had the job, I'd make a different choice... even if that meant spending a little cost to pump goodwill on this one. I'd much rather feed the halo at nearly no tangible expense than chip away at it.
Making decisions that chip away at goodwill (especially those that seem obviously self-serving) has the opposite effect... typically yielding a LOUDER crowd expressing their disappointment and spreading that negative to others. I don't read that as trolling or competitor shills... but very tangible disappointment from fellow Apple consumers made unhappy at something so easily, cheaply and fully resolvable with a simple change of retail policy.
Unfortunately, that is only a single opinion of an Apple (nearly everything) consumer and not an Apple corp decision-maker actually able to do something about this issue. Personally, I have plenty of bricks and cables so there would be nothing in this hypothetical policy change for me at all... but I can certainly appreciate the aggravation of opening up a beautifully-packaged <whatever> from the great & powerful Apple to discover that I immediately need to spend some more money to get fundamentals required to fully use it. The general image of the Apple brand I hold dear and that kind of customer experience do not mesh in my mind of how it SHOULD be. The idyllic Apple I imagine and the reality clash on simple corporate choices like this one.
Obviously, if I had the job, I'd make a different choice... even if that meant spending a little cost to pump goodwill on this one. I'd much rather feed the halo at nearly no tangible expense than chip away at it.
Last edited:
I hate how laggy and cluttered other streaming devices are so the speed and simplicity of the apple tv is enough to keep me around - just ordered mine for pickup from Target 
My unit is used to drive a JVC LCOS projector in my home theatre. Serious projectors are not smart (thank god for that) and the ATV is much more responsive than smart TVs which I find frustrating to use. Also this is one of the few devices which does reliable and proper frame rate matching without any user intervention. I’m interested in the new HDR10+ support.
The reason this product still exists is two-fold, 1. for people without Smart TVs, and 2. for the people with Smart TVs, like myself, that just loves the interface. I have an LG and the webOS is crap, it's not intuitive at all. Sure I could live with it, but the Apple TV interface blows it away.
Not to mention that
1) smart TVs literally spy on you. I’d rather have a box I trust more on the network and never give my TV itself network access and
2) I can upgrade the box more often than I upgrade my TV
They pulled this with iPhones too at one time. Went from a base to 4x as much for a higher price hike because they knew most couldn't work with base, but a lot could do twice base, so you were "forced" to pay for 4x as much for a higher price for something that was overkill
Where can you even get dumb anymore unless you go way used? When we were looking for one like seven years ago, we couldn't find much. We got as close as you could get with built in Chromecast. No apps on the TV. You have to either cast from a device or hook up a box like we did with AppleTV. Guess the closest you can do today is not connect it to the Internet, but some even force you at least do it in the beginning to finish setup.
Just seems like no middle ground much. Either Apple rules Blue > Green or Apple needs to crash and burn
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
I have a TV that is over 10 years old - 48", 1080p LG that works just fine.
A 10 year old streaming box would NOT be 'just fine'.
You have to buy signage displays basically. Unless you can get them used cheap it's not worth it though, better to just buy a smart TV and never give it network access
I have smart TV and have used Prime stick as well. Apple TV is way better in terms of user experience and ecosystem.