Drobo 5N

[chambord]

This (they recently added videos, too).
Alternatively, you can AirPlay videos from the Synology to your Apple TV if you have MKVs.

That is ridiculous. That is not accessing them from your AppleTV. lol. The Synology is a fantastic NAS, storage solution, etc. But it's a horrible idea as a foundation of a media server. Just plain horrible. Simply no way to justify it.

----------

You.. did not read that, did you?

You copy your files to the Synology and can access them with your Mac or Apple TV afterwards.

Wrong. Do not speak to me condescendingly simply because you are absolutely wrong and do not understand what the Synology does. If you copy files to your Synology, you absolutely can NOT access them from AppleTV unless you have iTunes running actively on one of your computers in your home network. Period. (or if you have an app running on your iOS device and stream them to the AppleTV - which is, again, a horrible and kludgy solution.) That is a massive shortcoming of the Synology unit.

 

[Giuly]

That is ridiculous. That is not accessing them from your AppleTV. lol. The Synology is a fantastic NAS, storage solution, etc. But it's a horrible idea as a foundation of a media server. Just plain horrible. Simply no way to justify it.

----------



Wrong. Do not speak to me condescendingly simply because you are absolutely wrong and do not understand what the Synology does. If you copy files to your Synology, you absolutely can NOT access them from AppleTV unless you have iTunes running actively on one of your computers in your home network. Period. (or if you have an app running on your iOS device and stream them to the AppleTV - which is, again, a horrible and kludgy solution.) That is a massive shortcoming of the Synology unit.

You're talking about the Video Station, which is an alternative way. Given that there is no jailbreak for the 3rd-gen Apple TV, this is one of the few ways to play mkvs without conversion to a native iTunes format. I wouldn't particularly call that horrible and clunky.

According to you, how am I supposed to talk to you then? Synology NAS have an iTunes server built-in that lets you access your music, and since firmware 4.2 (released March 5) also video, from a device that is capable of accessing an iTunes server (Mac, Apple TV) without turning on a computer. That's a fact but you don't seem to recognize that.

 

[chambord]

You're talking about the Video Station, which is an alternative way. Given that there is no jailbreak for the 3rd-gen Apple TV, this is one of the few ways to play mkvs without conversion to a native iTunes format. I wouldn't particularly call that horrible and clunky.

According to you, how am I supposed to talk to you then? Synology NAS have an iTunes server built-in that lets you access your music, and since firmware 4.2 (released March 5) also video, from a device that is capable of accessing an iTunes server (Mac, Apple TV) without turning on a computer. That's a fact but you don't seem to recognize that.

You're absolutely incorrect and simply have no idea what you are talking about. AppleTV does not support "an iTunes server". It supports "Home Sharing." Do this. Load a video on to your Synology device. Turn off all of your home computers, but leave your Synology on. Now load up your AppleTV, and play the video. You can't. That's why Synology is useless as a home media server.

Please, just admit that you are absolutely wrong.

 

[nizmoz]

This might help you understand it. Believe it or not, but it actually does. Technology, right?

Per the comments looks like that feature doesn't work.

 

[chambord]

Per the comments looks like that feature doesn't work.

Not to mention he linked an article from June 2012 supposedly describing a feature supposedly released in March 2013. Guily clearly does not understand what Synology's "iTunes server" does and doesn't do. I suspect he does not own one, and is offended that I called his initial advice bad.

 

[Giuly]

You can AirPlay videos to the Apple TV from an iOS device though. And technically, those aren't Macs, nor can you do that with a Drobo.

It's not a bad advice, regardless of whether it works via Home Sharing or AirPlay.

 

[chambord]

You can AirPlay videos to the Apple TV from an iOS device though. And technically, those aren't Macs, nor can you do that with a Drobo.

It's not a bad advice, regardless of whether it works via Home Sharing or AirPlay.

Yes, but that's not at all what I asked if it could do. Do you now understand why you were wrong about its capabilities? And do you now admit that it cannot, in fact, present itself as an iTunes server independently to AppleTV so that AppleTV can recognize it as "home sharing", etc? This is why a Synology box is a second rate solution for a media server. Sure,it's great hardware, but is crap for a media server. Apple is not about to grant third parties the ability to present themselves as iTunes devices to Apple hardware.

(But really, thank you for insulting me multiple times despite you being absolutely wrong.)

 

[Giuly]

Multiple times?

The Synology does what it's supposed to, which is stream video to an Apple TV without a Mac running. Whether it does it in a 'horrible and kludgy' way or the most elegant way possible to work around Apple's restrictions is up to your hermeneutic generosity.

 

[Ifti]

Why should you need to run a Mac Mini 100% of the time when a running a NAS on its own would suffice for a majority of the tasks you need it for. You're using more than twice the energy needed to run similar tasks. That is a waste of money and energy. I still don't understand how the set up is more flexible. You have to run two pieces of kit with a Drobo vs. 1 with Synology. Silly.

BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR ME!
A NAS on its own did NOT suffice for MY uses. I have had a Synology 5 bay for 2 years and I found it restrictive.
Yes its more expensive, but it solves my needs. Why do people buy a max spec MacBook when the lowest spec would suffice for most casual users?? With regards to electricity, the Mini + Drobo uses more then the Synology, but cost wise, the sifference is going to be very small, so FOR ME its a no brainer.

Its silly to you, because you simply refuse to understand people's needs differ to yours. With Synology I had to wait until a package was available to do certain tasks. Plex, for example, couldnt be used until a package was finally made available. The OS is not accessible, you need to do everything through the Synology interface. How can this possibly be more flexible then a full on server OS?! lol

People's needs differ. Some people will find a Synoloy NAS (a great piece of equipment it is) will suffice for their uses. Others will find that a DAS does the job fine, since many MAC users rarely shutdown their systems anyway. For me the latter worked perfectly for my uses. I fail to see how you can argue between the two systems when they serve different usertypes in the first instance.

 

[chambord]

Multiple times?

The Synology does what it's supposed to, which is stream video to an Apple TV without a Mac running. Whether it does it in a 'horrible and kludgy' way or the most elegant way possible to work around Apple's restrictions is up to your hermeneutic generosity.

Haha, it's so funny how bad you've kludged up your entire understanding of all of this. First you misunderstood what the Synology can and can't do (and insulted people because of this.) And now you're confusing AirPlay with iTunes Server. When you load up your iOS app and pick a file to be played, and then select your AppleTV as the AirPlay device to stream it to, that is not iTunes server. iTunes server is merely a package that allows the Synology unit to present itself to a running copy of iTunes on the network as a set of available media. Period. So, as I said originally, iTunes server on Synology is essentially useless. And having to load up a third piece of hardware (iOS device or a computer) to load up a video on the Synology device, and then use that to AirPlay to yet another device (AppleTV) is just ridiculously kludgey. Hey - it's not Synology's fault, it's Apple's, for not allowing devices to present themselves to Apple hardware as iTunes.

If you need me to break any of this down to you because you are confused or still do not understand, let me know. (I'm sure at this point you're going to again "misunderstand" things and try to make another witty comment.)

 

[Ifti]

Haha, it's so funny how bad you've kludged up your entire understanding of all of this. First you misunderstood what the Synology can and can't do (and insulted people because of this.) And now you're confusing AirPlay with iTunes Server. When you load up your iOS app and pick a file to be played, and then select your AppleTV as the AirPlay device to stream it to, that is not iTunes server. iTunes server is merely a package that allows the Synology unit to present itself to a running copy of iTunes on the network as a set of available media. Period. So, as I said originally, iTunes server on Synology is essentially useless. And having to load up a third piece of hardware (iOS device or a computer) to load up a video on the Synology device, and then use that to AirPlay to yet another device (AppleTV) is just ridiculously kludgey. Hey - it's not Synology's fault, it's Apple's, for not allowing devices to present themselves to Apple hardware as iTunes.

If you need me to break any of this down to you because you are confused or still do not understand, let me know. (I'm sure at this point you're going to again "misunderstand" things and try to make another witty comment.)

This is 100% correct.
When I had a Synology I had to use an iPad or iPhone in between in order to airplay media across to a AppleTV. It could not be done directly from the Synology to the AppleTV (not without jailbreaking anyway).
Seems to me like a lot of people get confused as to what a iTunes Server actually is - it simply feeds an instance of iTunes.

 

[chambord]

I do not think that it is necessary to imply that someone is inefficient because they do not like their Synology unit. In fact, the Synology is inefficient, and using it for any type of media streaming application is kludgey and in fact horribly inefficient and quite frankly inelegant. It's a nice device if you just want to store some files and make them accessible on a network, but terribly unnecessary for most tasks.

 

[Giuly]

I do not think that it is necessary to imply that someone is inefficient because they do not like their Synology unit. In fact, the Synology is inefficient, and using it for any type of media streaming application is kludgey and in fact horribly inefficient and quite frankly inelegant. It's a nice device if you just want to store some files and make them accessible on a network, but terribly unnecessary for most tasks.

Well, got a better less kludgey, horrible and inelegant solution except for a Mac Mini or replacing the Apple TV with something else plus the same Synology NAS (as it's still $200 less expensive than the Drobo) or Mac altogether, as you can't jailbreak a 3rd-gen Apple TV and install something appropriate? It's your idea that it's the only working way to stream video onto an Apple TV that doesn't involve a Mac is sooo bad after all, and the situation doesn't get better by criticizing for the rest of the week. Offer us an alternative.

Using an iPad to browse a list of videos and AirPlaying it to the Apple TV is just as efficient as Apple's Remote App. By your logic, you won't like Apple's iTV either, because chances are that it uses an iPad as the remote. Or a Samsung SmartTV, because that one just puts the remote control buttons on a Galaxy Tab.

 

[chambord]

According to you, how am I supposed to talk to you then? Synology NAS have an iTunes server built-in that lets you access your music, and since firmware 4.2 (released March 5) also video, from a device that is capable of accessing an iTunes server (Mac, Apple TV) without turning on a computer. That's a fact but you don't seem to recognize that.

Absolutely wrong. You wrote that Synology iTunes server allows an AppleTV to access content on the Synology without turning on a computer. You are 100% wrong for multiple reasons. First, as we already pointed out, Synology iTunes server does not have anything to do with accessing media on other devices, it merely presents a share of available music to a local iTunes install on the network. Second, it is impossible for AppleTV to ever access anything on a Synology device without having a local copy of iTunes running. Period. Third, if you use the kludge of a third party app on an iOS device to stream media from the Synology device to the AppleTV, then this is using AirPlay technology, and is independent of Synology's iTunes server, and this is not (as you wrote) AppleTV accessing the media, it is quite the opposite, it is AppleTV (via AirPlay) receiving the media.

Does this explanation help you understand the differences of how these basic technologies work?

 

[CaptHenryMorgan]

BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR ME!
A NAS on its own did NOT suffice for MY uses. I have had a Synology 5 bay for 2 years and I found it restrictive.
Yes its more expensive, but it solves my needs. Why do people buy a max spec MacBook when the lowest spec would suffice for most casual users?? With regards to electricity, the Mini + Drobo uses more then the Synology, but cost wise, the sifference is going to be very small, so FOR ME its a no brainer.

Its silly to you, because you simply refuse to understand people's needs differ to yours. With Synology I had to wait until a package was available to do certain tasks. Plex, for example, couldnt be used until a package was finally made available. The OS is not accessible, you need to do everything through the Synology interface. How can this possibly be more flexible then a full on server OS?! lol

People's needs differ. Some people will find a Synoloy NAS (a great piece of equipment it is) will suffice for their uses. Others will find that a DAS does the job fine, since many MAC users rarely shutdown their systems anyway. For me the latter worked perfectly for my uses. I fail to see how you can argue between the two systems when they serve different usertypes in the first instance.

Well then you're different than most people and weirdly and oddly inefficient it seems.

 

[Giuly]

Absolutely wrong. (...

The discussion already moved on in search for a better way to do this without a Mac Mini or replacing an existing Apple TV because according to you, it's like the worst thing ever. Got advice?

 

[chambord]

The discussion already moved on in search for a better way to do this without a Mac Mini or replacing an existing Apple TV because according to you, it's like the worst thing ever. Got advice?

My goal here was merely to point out that the advice you offered was poor, and to fill some gaps in your understanding of basic Apple technologies. People are free to stream media however they want. I prefer to do it the way it was intended.

 

[Giuly]

Sure, the hardware you linked to is good

My goal here was merely to point out that the advice you offered was poor

The OP probably resolved his problem already anyways.

 

[Ifti]

Well then you're different than most people and weirdly and oddly inefficient it seems.

Your previous post was removed yet you still re-post it?

Just because something is done differently it doesnt make it inefficient. YOUR method is more restrictive. Simple as. You need to be a little more open-minded and realise the fact that people needs differ.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
This thread is degraded into incessant bickering - closing