Apple Refunds Expedited Shipping Charges for New Apple TV Orders, Cites Inability to Meet 'Delivery Commitment'

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yeah AirPlay does absorb AirTunes - it's doing it already with iTunes now using the AirPlay icon to control my Airport Express speakers. At any rate, my thing is, I don't want to leave my MacBook on with iTunes running 24/7. The new model introduces an extra piece of hardware in the mix (the device with the source content) to the ATV and remote model since the ATV can no longer source its own content. That's all I'm saying. I think it's really cool that one will be able to stream audio/video to another device, but honestly, I would have been ok paying a little more to have an ATV with a hard drive that can be a standalone device, rather than more of a conduit. Not sure what the big deal is with syncing and why they made fun of it at the keynote. People sync their phone and their iPods...don't see the difference.

They make fun of it because the new one they want to sell doesn't have it... just like BD is a "bag of hurt" and Flash "is bad". Or like "video on an iPod makes no sense" until Apple added video to an iPod.

It's sad that cheerleaders are happy about losing the airtunes functionality (because Apple chose to drop it) and justifying it with airplay, when all that happens is we go from needing just a Mac and an TV to make the old way work... to needing a Mac, an TV and one of the iDevices to make the new way work. Maybe we get to turn off our Mac, but we still have to leave on our iDevice.

And like you, the thing should have the option for local storage. Apple could enable it- like hopefully some hackers will- through that USB port with a software update, letting everyone choose whatever amount of storage they would like to have, without making those happy with a purely streaming arrangement pay for any storage. Unfortunately, the old one has had a USB port for 4 years and Apple never enabled it for anything more than service, so we can only hope that this time will be different.

 

[lucanaut]

Actually, yes there is one (mini USB port), but, like the old TV, it isn't normalized so that it can be used from something like local storage. We can hope that the hackers will find a way to enable that kind of function (for those of us that appreciate the idea of local storage).

Oh! I see it! Under the HDMI. They didn't put an arrow on it and black-on-black was hard to see. Anyway, yeah so same deal as the current one I guess: you can hack it and then use it as storage. So...I could hack the ATV2 so...it can be just like the ATV I already own? Nah. Since it's visible in my entertainment system, the less boxes/gadgets stacked up, the better.

I think all I am trying to say is that it should be ok for people on here to say that the new ATV doesn't meet their requirements (or doesn't add any desired features) and they will stick with the current one, without the early adopters getting all up in arms. This new one is not revolutionary to the extent that an update MUST be purchased NOW.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Oh! I see it! Under the HDMI. They didn't put an arrow on it and black-on-black was hard to see. Anyway, yeah so same deal as the current one I guess: you can hack it and then use it as storage. So...I could hack the ATV2 so...it can be just like the ATV I already own? Nah. Since it's visible in my entertainment system, the less boxes/gadgets stacked up, the better.

I think all I am trying to say is that it should be ok for people on here to say that the new ATV doesn't meet their requirements (or doesn't add any desired features) and they will stick with the current one, without the early adopters getting all up in arms. This new one is not revolutionary to the extent that an update MUST be purchased NOW.

I agree. Unfortunately, we don't even know if the new one can be hacked. Maybe not, which would then make that USB truly just for service. I hope not, but in the meantime, that and the lack of 1080p keeps my money in my pocket. I own 2 of the TV classics.

 

[Mistrblank]

I still don't understand why I should jump on this over keeping my current Apple TV? Anyone? I want a new cool box too...

Off the top of my head:
1. If you don't have another dedicated Netflix player.
2. You will take advantage of the video portion of Airplay from one of your other iDevices.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

along with MisterBlanks, the other (maybe) biggie is...

3. 720p30fps instead of 720p24fps. That should yield slightly better (though still disappointing only) 720p HD video.

I really can't hardly see the smaller size of the box as very important at all. Some guy says it will fit nicely behind the TV hanging on his wall. I've seen a few notes about it being easier to work into a car.

While the heat issue is nice, the heat of the old one never really seemed to matter in this household.

I guess 4 & 5 would be:

4. Any future software expansions is likely to only be applicable to the new box.
5. If rentals matter to you, a small selection of rentals will be only 99 cents during the trial (though you can probably own the same episode for 99 cents if you visit Amazon, or watch it for free on the network websites.

Beyond 5, I just don't see anything. I'm hoping when people actually own one, some unmentioned bonuses come out. I own 2 of the classic models, and I soooo wanted a new 1080p-capable version (whether iTunes had any 1080p content or not). But, like you, I just don't see much reason to upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade? I increasingly am thinking my next Apple TV might be the many apps built into internet-ready Samsung HDTVs: http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore Not only do they have all the desirable TV-content apps that I'd be interested, they also have "normal" USB ports to which I could hook up a nice big USB drive and have all the content on demand. I've played around with the UI at Best Buy and, while it's not as nice as Apple TVs (that's the part that still wins against just about every competitor I check), it's not bad either.

I wish that someone would basically code the existing Apple TVs UI into a stand alone application for Mac Mini, and I'd probably just go that way. Or I wish Apple would take the existing Apple TV UI, add the Netflix option, and make it the new Front Row, and I'd probably go Mac Mini. But right now, I'm thinking maybe Samsung wins- all things considered. Even if the new Apple TV gets Apps, apparently the hardware is limited to 720p. The new TV- like the old HDTV- can display higher resolution than that... and I have 4 years of HD home movies shot in 1080HD, edited & rendered in iMovie, able to store them in iTunes, and they'll play there just fine. But whether it's the existing Apple TV or the new one, apparently they can't be pumped from iTunes to either 1080HDTV. It's a shame... as it seems this set-top market is Apple's to own. I wish they really wanted it.

 

[gugy]

I wish that someone would basically code the existing Apple TVs UI into a stand alone application for Mac Mini, and I'd probably just go that way. Or I wish Apple would take the existing Apple TV UI, add the Netflix option, and make it the new Front Row, and I'd probably go Mac Mini.

Yeah, That would be sweet. I am more and more looking into the Mini, but Front row needs an update to act like the ATV UI and the advantage of the Mini I don't need to transcode (I just want to use VideoTS) all my videos (using Plex) and 1080p.
I am sure FrontRow will only support the current codecs ATV accepts though.

 

[revelated]

what is it going to do that your other boxes won't do?

You have to understand that a lot of people don't use their other systems properly.

- The 360 has had media streaming capabilities since day one. They're limited - but when you pair it with a Media Server, it becomes quite capable.

- The PS3 also has media streaming capabilities.

The only thing that makes the Apple TV even remotely appealing is the Front Row and iTunes integrations. Beyond that...others have done it better. WDTV Live HD Plus, for example. Even the Mac Mini seems to function as a better alternative (though significantly more expensive).

I don't know. Maybe I'm old fashioned. I want a device that lets me plug my existing TV shows and movies into the device as an eSATA, USB or FireWire 800 device, and read them no matter what format they're in, PLUS the streaming media for the occasional download of stuff. Apple TV fails when it comes to existing content, and thus I just cannot go for it.

 

[snebes]

It's sad that cheerleaders are happy about losing the airtunes functionality (because Apple chose to drop it) and justifying it with airplay, when all that happens is we go from needing just a Mac and an TV to make the old way work... to needing a Mac, an TV and one of the iDevices to make the new way work. Maybe we get to turn off our Mac, but we still have to leave on our iDevice.

I'm sorry, but why do you think this? AirPlay will be able to access any itunes library available to it. All you would need would be is your computer (or itunes server) and the appletv. Why does another iDevice need to be involved?

Some guy on the first page thinks this too -- if I followed his line of thought correctly -- but it just doesn't make sense.

The idea behind AirPlay is that your content follows you. Perhaps you bring a movie you "rented" on your iPad to a friends house to watch. You can transmit it to their TV via their AppleTV, without the need for the movie to be on their itunes server. If you are at home, and the movie is in your iTunes library, you can play it that way over your network. No iDevice needed.

I don't know. Maybe I'm old fashioned. I want a device that lets me plug my existing TV shows and movies into the device as an eSATA, USB or FireWire 800 device, and read them no matter what format they're in, PLUS the streaming media for the occasional download of stuff. Apple TV fails when it comes to existing content, and thus I just cannot go for it.

How about stream the your existing TV shows and movies over your WiFi? Yes, they would need to be in iTunes, and I'm sure you will find a fault with that. But it is a good idea for most. Personally, I've had two faulty WDTV Lives. All the other alternatives seemed worse or were way more $$$. I did this exact thing with my old AppleTV that I have since sold. it played 720p just fine for my 720p TV. I can't wait to get the new one in my hands so I can do this again.

 

[chrono1081]

They refunded my iPod Nano shipping. I paid for 2 day and Fedex took 5 or 6 days. I didn't even contact them, they just automatically refunded me. I love Apple

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm sorry, but why do you think this? AirPlay will be able to access any itunes library available to it. All you would need would be is your computer (or itunes server) and the appletv. Why does another iDevice need to be involved?

Some guy on the first page thinks this too -- if I followed his line of thought correctly -- but it just doesn't make sense.

The idea behind AirPlay is that your content follows you. Perhaps you bring a movie you "rented" on your iPad to a friends house to watch. You can transmit it to their TV via their AppleTV, without the need for the movie to be on their itunes server. If you are at home, and the movie is in your iTunes library, you can play it that way over your network. No iDevice needed.

Let's see. If you have an TV, do you need a computer running iTunes? Yes you do, the new one needs a computer even more than the old one. If you want to airplay from an iDevice, do you need an iDevice? Yes you do. So in the new setup, one needs a computer + TV + iDevice. In the old setup- the one I have now by the way- a computer plus an TV could let the TV operate like an airport express via the airtunes functionality.

Maybe you're thinking laptop + TV, with the laptop replacing the iDevice in the above? Otherwise, airplay is a clever way to take a similar nice feature already in place involving 2 Apple devices and push us to have 3 Apple devices, name it a little different, and make some us gush about the greatness of it. Like others, I'd like to still have the airtunes functionality (too) if I was buying a replacement TV (and I'd like to at least have the OPTION to attach local storage so that it wouldn't be an all-streaming device because "people don't want to use computers with it", yet if it's all streaming it MUST have a computer being used with it.)

Nothing against the added feature of airplay- I see some interesting applications for that. Very nice. It's just too bad that some nice features apparently had to go to make room for it. If we didn't trade good things about the old TV for some good things about the new one, a lot more people with old ones would be buying new ones, instead of clinging to the old ones. I've got 2 of those old ones and no new ones on the way... not that I'd even miss $99 for a second.

 

[snebes]

Let's see. If you have an TV, do you need a computer running iTunes? Yes you do, the new one needs a computer even more than the old one. If you want to airplay from an iDevice, do you need an iDevice? Yes you do. So in the new setup, one needs a computer + TV + iDevice. In the old setup- the one I have now by the way- a computer plus an TV could let the TV operate like an airport express via the airtunes functionality.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. As was presented by Jobs, you can use an iPad to stream to an AppleTV. No mention of a computer being needed, just a WiFi network. Perhaps your thinking of the computer replacing the WiFi network in the above...

Maybe you're thinking laptop + TV, with the laptop replacing the iDevice in the above? Otherwise, airplay is a clever way to take a similar nice feature already in place involving 2 Apple devices and push us to have 3 Apple devices, name it a little different, and make some us gush about the greatness of it. Like others, I'd like to still have the airtunes functionality (too) if I was buying a replacement TV (and I'd like to at least have the OPTION to attach local storage so that it wouldn't be an all-streaming device because "people don't want to use computers with it", yet if it's all streaming it MUST have a computer being used with it.)

Who said the AirTunes functionality went away when it was renamed? You want to stream music? Fine. You want to stream videos now? Its like magic. AirPlay is AirTunes + Video + stream from iDevice.

Nothing against the added feature of airplay- I see some interesting applications for that. Very nice. It's just too bad that some nice features apparently had to go to make room for it. If we didn't trade good things about the old TV for some good things about the new one, a lot more people with old ones would be buying new ones, instead of clinging to the old ones. I've got 2 of those old ones and no new ones on the way... not that I'd even miss $99 for a second.

One of the things I didn't do with the original TV was sync content to it. Guess what? I waste power. My iMac is on 24/7. Does it go to sleep? Yes. Would my TV wake it up when it was going to play stuff from it? Yes. Why no syncing? It took forever to sync stuff, even over wireless N. I have more than 150GB of TV shows/Movies in my iTunes. Mostly in 720p. All played fine over the network.

 

[revelated]

How about stream the your existing TV shows and movies over your WiFi? Yes, they would need to be in iTunes, and I'm sure you will find a fault with that. But it is a good idea for most. Personally, I've had two faulty WDTV Lives. All the other alternatives seemed worse or were way more $$$. I did this exact thing with my old AppleTV that I have since sold. it played 720p just fine for my 720p TV. I can't wait to get the new one in my hands so I can do this again.

Maybe you don't understand how bandwidth works.

If I'm streaming media across a LAN wirelessly, there is less LAN pipe available for Internet usage. The same is true in the reverse: if I'm doing a large download, which I frequently am, the stream is impacted.

There are two ways to avoid this. Gigabit Ethernet, which is not practical for a laptop that's 20 feet from the router, and local storage. The old Apple TV with aTV Flash was quite possibly the ultimate in this regard as it supported attached storage and a bevy of codecs. Having experienced 1080p MKV files over 802.11n and seeing it choke, I accept that local storage is the only answer.

You might have used the old WDTV Live and had less than good results, so did I. The Plus version, however, is by far and away superior to most in the market.

 

[CFreymarc]

More orders than they expected perhaps?

This is a product that is going to be a big dent into the Sarnoff / Nelson television network model as hard as Cable TV did in the last 70s / early 80s.

Why you don't hear much about it is that those who own the networks don't want to promote it. This could replace the very network the talking head is paid to recite from the teleprompter.

Also, I can easily see many customers drop their television channel option on their Cable TV server and use it for Internet only to get these shows.

With this going viral, I can't wait to see the major sports leages have an option to stream games live to Apple TV bypassing the traditional networks all together. Give it a few years.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. As was presented by Jobs, you can use an iPad to stream to an AppleTV. No mention of a computer being needed, just a WiFi network. Perhaps your thinking of the computer replacing the WiFi network in the above...

As soon as you possess one of the new ones, try to set it up without a computer. Try to get it going day 1 without a computer. It may indeed work out that after you do your set up, you can completely turn off the computer and solely use an iDevice to push video & audio to it- we'll know soon enough- but I am extraordinarily confident that the new one will need a computer in the mix. Thus, computer + TV + iDevice if you want to airplay, or maybe a laptop can airplay with an TV, which is the only way I see it being just a computer and an TV for airplay, no iDevice required. I don't see any scenario where it will be able to be just an iDevice and an TV.

Besides, even if that would work out, as soon as the iDevice goes out with you, the device would then become useless for your own household content at home for the rest of the family, until you bring the keeper of your content back home. Again, a computer is pretty much a required element for the new TV. Airplay just cleverly motivates iDevice hardware to join the twosome that has worked well for the last 4 years.

Who said the AirTunes functionality went away when it was renamed? You want to stream music? Fine. You want to stream videos now? Its like magic. AirPlay is AirTunes + Video + stream from iDevice.

Airtunes means no iDevice required. If you're having a party, you don't want your iDevice laying around pumping audio or video to your TV. That would be a great way for your iDevice to disappear. It's a lot harder to smuggle an iMac or Mac Pro out of the house.

Airplay is cool, no doubt about it. And it would be very cool to transport your content to someone else's house on an iDevice and be able to push it to their TV. Very cool.

One of the things I didn't do with the original TV was sync content to it. Guess what? I waste power. My iMac is on 24/7. Does it go to sleep? Yes. Would my TV wake it up when it was going to play stuff from it? Yes. Why no syncing? It took forever to sync stuff, even over wireless N. I have more than 150GB of TV shows/Movies in my iTunes. Mostly in 720p. All played fine over the network.

That's great. But like all such comments, YOU and YOUR tastes/needs are not representative of EVERYONE ELSES tastes & needs. I have about 280GB of content that I choose to sync to my TV, and another larger cache that I stream. I prefer that setup to streaming everything for various reasons.

Your way works for you? Great! My way works for me. That should be equally great. Your way should not be forced on everyone else just because it works for you.

And you do realize that you could have set up your TV, then used a temporary wired connection to sync all that content quickly, then switched back to your wireless set up, right? Very easy to do that. Then, you could completely turn off your Mac, save that power, and still have access to all of your content on demand. I just did this very thing for one of my family. We couldn't run a network cable to where their TV was located, so we set it up via Wireless N, then unhooked the Apple TV and brought it to the computer + router, cat 5 cable connection, iTunes sync. The sync went a lot faster than wireless. When it was finished, unhooked it from the cat 5 cable, took it back to the TV, and now they have lots of key content synced to the Apple TV, with the rest available to stream via wireless from the Mac. Easy and Fast.

 

[snebes]

As soon as you possess one of the new ones, try to set it up without a computer. Try to get it going day 1 without a computer. It may indeed work out that after you do your set up, you can completely turn off the computer and solely use an iDevice to push video & audio to it- we'll know soon enough- but I am extraordinarily confident that the new one will need a computer in the mix. Thus, computer + TV + iDevice if you want to airplay, or maybe a laptop can airplay with an TV, which is the only way I see it being just a computer and an TV for airplay, no iDevice required. I don't see any scenario where it will be able to be just an iDevice and an TV.

Besides, even if that would work out, as soon as the iDevice goes out with you, the device would then become useless for your own household content at home for the rest of the family, until you bring the keeper of your content back home. Again, a computer is pretty much a required element for the new TV. Airplay just cleverly motivates iDevice hardware to join the twosome that has worked well for the last 4 years.

I get it. You don't want a computer involved. To each their own. However, I believe you are in a minority. And yes, a computer is required for setup, it was on the gen1 tv too. It is for an iPhone and iPod as well. And you know what? You can't create an itunes account through the tv, iPhone or iPod, only on a computer. Without the iTunes account on the gen1 and no computer? It might as well have been an paperweight.

Airtunes means no iDevice required. If you're having a party, you don't want your iDevice laying around pumping audio or video to your TV. That would be a great way for your iDevice to disappear. It's a lot harder to smuggle an iMac or Mac Pro out of the house.

And AirPlay allows this, what is your point? Usage of an iDevice is optional, not required (my point all along). And how is AirPlay going to get your iDevice stolen at a party more so then when you are not using it? My iPhone would be in my pocket either way--or other protected area. I would use my iMac for music (and iPhone for remote) if I hosted a party as well.

That's great. But like all such comments, YOU and YOUR tastes/needs are not representative of EVERYONE ELSES tastes & needs. I have about 280GB of content that I choose to sync to my TV, and another larger cache that I stream. I prefer that setup to streaming everything for various reasons.

Your way works for you? Great! My way works for me. That should be equally great. Your way should not be forced on everyone else just because it works for you.

And you do realize that you could have set up your TV, then used a temporary wired connection to sync all that content quickly, then switched back to your wireless set up, right? Very easy to do that. Then, you could completely turn off your Mac, save that power, and still have access to all of your content on demand. I just did this very thing for one of my family. We couldn't run a network cable to where their TV was located, so we set it up via Wireless N, then unhooked the Apple TV and brought it to the computer + router, cat 5 cable connection, iTunes sync. The sync went a lot faster than wireless. When it was finished, unhooked it from the cat 5 cable, took it back to the TV, and now they have lots of key content synced to the Apple TV, with the rest available to stream via wireless from the Mac. Easy and Fast.

Yes, it is my way. And it also happens to coincide with Apples way too. But my way doesn't include a wired network, as you suggest that I have. I don't. AirPort Express only, so no, that won't work for me.

Maybe you don't understand how bandwidth works.

If I'm streaming media across a LAN wirelessly, there is less LAN pipe available for Internet usage. The same is true in the reverse: if I'm doing a large download, which I frequently am, the stream is impacted.

There are two ways to avoid this. Gigabit Ethernet, which is not practical for a laptop that's 20 feet from the router, and local storage. The old Apple TV with aTV Flash was quite possibly the ultimate in this regard as it supported attached storage and a bevy of codecs. Having experienced 1080p MKV files over 802.11n and seeing it choke, I accept that local storage is the only answer.

You might have used the old WDTV Live and had less than good results, so did I. The Plus version, however, is by far and away superior to most in the market.

I do understand how bandwidth works. I am in a one person household. There is nobody else using high-bandwidth tasks while I am streaming. If there were, I would setup a wired network for that reason. I also didn't say I was using 1080p MKVs, as they would choke not only bandwidth wise, but because the tv wouldn't support them without davilla's code and the added video chip (thus removing wireless chip).

And perhaps the WD Live Plus is better. It was a choice of mine to get, until this tv was announced. The WDTV had too many limitations for me. I wanted to use it with an TimeMachine, which wasn't going to happen. (Although, I ended up returning the TimeMachine and just use a USB Hard drive now that I don't need network support and I use it for all iTunes content and downloads, my main drive is a 60GB SSD) I would need to install NTFS read/write support on my mac so I could copy a 4GB+ MKV file to a flash drive for it, not something I would want to do, but did it. However, the WD software is crappy and was the reason my two units bricked themselves. It will take a lot for me to go back and try a WDTV because of that.

 

[gibjer]

Logged in this morning to find

"Prepared for Shipment"

woot

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I get it. You don't want a computer involved. To each their own. However, I believe you are in a minority. And yes, a computer is required for setup, it was on the gen1 tv too. It is for an iPhone and iPod as well. And you know what? You can't create an itunes account through the tv, iPhone or iPod, only on a computer. Without the iTunes account on the gen1 and no computer? It might as well have been an paperweight.

I don't know how you read that in my answers. I'm the one happy with a computer plus an TV, no iDevice required. You came back challenging why do we need a computer? I answered that, and then you come back trying to flip it like I'm saying we don't need a computer. No, we definitely have to have a computer with the TV. As is, the airtunes functionality is an excellent feature involving just a computer and TV. Airplay seems to be more for an iDevice and TV. The gripe- perhaps misplaced- is that to use a feature much like we have had for years in airtunes, now requires 3 devices instead of 2.

Yes, it is my way. And it also happens to coincide with Apples way too. But my way doesn't include a wired network, as you suggest that I have. I don't. AirPort Express only, so no, that won't work for me.

Again, you griped that you didn't sync because it was too slow to do so wirelessly. I pointed out a way to set up in wireless mode, then temporarily wire it for a fast sync, then go back to wireless mode. That way, you could sync without wasting all that time. You turn it around like I'm telling you to switch to a wired network, I'm not- just offering a tip for a way to do a one-time fast sync, since you have less content than hard drive capacity. If nothing else, syncing that content would give you one more backup for your media. You have the space anyway. And it will run more efficiently already at your TV, than trying to stream it, especially if anyone's over and wants to do some internet browsing while you're streaming content.

 

[revelated]

I do understand how bandwidth works. I am in a one person household. There is nobody else using high-bandwidth tasks while I am streaming. If there were, I would setup a wired network for that reason. I also didn't say I was using 1080p MKVs, as they would choke not only bandwidth wise, but because the tv wouldn't support them without davilla's code and the added video chip (thus removing wireless chip).

And perhaps the WD Live Plus is better. It was a choice of mine to get, until this tv was announced. The WDTV had too many limitations for me. I wanted to use it with an TimeMachine, which wasn't going to happen. (Although, I ended up returning the TimeMachine and just use a USB Hard drive now that I don't need network support and I use it for all iTunes content and downloads, my main drive is a 60GB SSD) I would need to install NTFS read/write support on my mac so I could copy a 4GB+ MKV file to a flash drive for it, not something I would want to do, but did it. However, the WD software is crappy and was the reason my two units bricked themselves. It will take a lot for me to go back and try a WDTV because of that.

Dude, I'm a one-person household too, and the fact is that my internet is constantly doing something. It's the most expensive utility bill I have, and I'm more than willing to pay it. I dropped satellite long ago because I got tired of the shows, I've killed credit cards, I've dropped cell phone bills. But I will not cut my internet, because I rely on it daily at the maximum speeds it can give me. Unfortunately that means local streaming is out of the question, because I don't get max speeds while streaming local media.

I didn't say you use 1080p MKV, I'm saying I do. I have a lot of anime that is encoded at the highest possible resolution - WDTV Live Plus handles them without a problem. The old AppleTV with aTV Flash handled them capably. This new one is basically thumbing its nose at my local movie cache, and that bothers me. I don't want to buy, rent, or subscribe to anything. I want to view what I've already purchased on an existing device that feeds to my TV. Again, it's a sad state that the Mac Mini is a better overall media device than one designed to be one. Yes, I know, the Mac Mini is tremendously more expensive. But my point is that Apple could have added the ability to use local attached storage if it wanted to.

 

[SirCake]

Charge reversed.

My card was charged $106.06 yesterday by Apple. I figured this meant my new Apple TV was being shipped any moment.

I checked into this due to talk on a different forum I post on. There were at least 3 of us there that were charged yesterday for the amount of the Apple TV by Apple.

I preordered mine the moment the Apple Store came up.

My card was also charged that amount last week. But on Friday, the charge was removed. I've received no emails, but I don't expect to see delivery in September. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

==============

Naturally, four minutes after I posted this, I got a shipment notification from Apple. I haven't been charged (again) yet, but my Apple TV is on it's way!