How to Use Apple TV's iPhone-Based Color Balance Feature

[Velli]

I wonder if Samsung will be implementing a way to use Samsung phones to calibrate Samsung TVs.

That way... it could calibrate the actual TV... not just manipulating one device for one input.

I suspect they don’t have factory calibrated cameras, which is a necessity for this to work. It is well known that apps that use the built in microphone works pretty well on iPhone, but very inconsistently on Android phones. It’s probably the same for the camera.

But, if you really want to calibrate your TV, both buying an actual colorimeter, or actually hiring a pro, is probably cheaper than you think. Certainly cheaper than replacing your phone. I don’t really get the dissapointment that this isn’t an actual calibration, if that’s what hou really want, just get one! This feature is not stopping you.

 

[_Refurbished_]

You seem to think that I don’t understand what moral means, I’m pointing out that not only has no one proven a breach of morality they’ve not even shown that it’s against the law or policy.
that is not to say that every law is moral or every policy is moral, but it is pointing out that none of the three have been met. (the other 2 being easier to prove as some people view morality as subjective while others view it as objective but even if you believe in objective morality you should still be able to prove/explain the perceived moral violation.)

You failed to demonstrate why it’s morally wrong you just state it is without substantiation, but we are slowly getting closer to the root of yours (and some others) opinion.

just curious If that is your stance would you say that it’s also morally wrong for Apple to force you to buy a new device to calibrate the new Apple TV you just bought?

Morally should apple have provided a way to calibrate it that was self-contained for example a sensor in the new remote?

if you buy an item and only try it temporarily within their pre-existing policy you’re not stealing they get it right back after the return window closes lest you chose to keep the item after all.
in fact you’re giving them the opportunity to try to sell/convince you into not returning that item and as I previously pointed out all evidence points to them liking that policy or else they would change it.

Also another falsehood Remember this doesn’t calibrate your TV and only calibrates your new Apple TV, no other devices connected to the TV nor the TV itself get calibrated.

I told you why it was morally wrong. You're using a system that is designed to return a device if you don't like it, which is the purpose of a return period. The freedom to return a device if it doesn't work out for your needs.

Your advice, however, is to exploit this system for your own benefit to calibrate your Apple TV on Apple's dime (Apple will lose money in this process, as it costs money to handle a return).

Is it morally ok to buy a suit for a wedding, keep the tags on, and return it within the 2 week return policy? I'd say no. You're not giving money to the suit store and you're using their merchandise. Are they obligated to accept your suit for return after six days? Of course, as that's what the return policy states.

If you can't understand this, not sure what else to tell you at this point. Moving on.

 

[Whathappened]

No I don't...do you keep pretending your stereo is being modified and your speakers are made better?

Wasn’t even my quote but still: apples and oranges.

 

[Anarchy99]

I told you why it was morally wrong. You're using a system that is designed to return a device if you don't like it, which is the purpose of a return period. The freedom to return a device if it doesn't work out for your needs.

Your advice, however, is to exploit this system for your own benefit to calibrate your Apple TV on Apple's dime (Apple will lose money in this process, as it costs money to handle a return).

Is it morally ok to buy a suit for a wedding, keep the tags on, and return it within the 2 week return policy? I'd say no. You're not giving money to the suit store and you're using their merchandise. Are they obligated to accept your suit for return after six days? Of course, as that's what the return policy states.

If you can't understand this, not sure what else to tell you at this point. Moving on.

you didn’t tell me why it’s morally wrong.

you’re implying the systems only for returns that meet your personal arbitrary standards of why you should return a device, Else it’s a “exploit”.

unlike plenty of businesses Apple doesn’t stipulate it needs to be returned only if it’s damaged, their error etc. otherwise there’s a restocking fee etc.

they leave it ambiguous stating you can return it for any reason because they realize people might not “like it” for a multitude of arbitrary reasons, but they realize overall they make more money leaving it open ended.


for your suit analogy for me to determine whether i find it personally immoral I would need to see the terms and conditions for the theoretical store, but plenty of stores discourage that with restocking fees etc.
Even if the store if the allows the return, for me to determine whether it was immoral in my opinion it would help to know what happens to the returned product.


For example, Apple will resell, reuse or worse case refurbish & resell that <insert product here>

some stores don’t do that with clothing returns due to potential sanitary problems, which then adds environmental moral concerns etc.

so morally I think it’s comparing apples to oranges.


fundamentally most businesses do factor in loss/shrinkage whether it be from stolen goods to returns, So it’s up to you whether you determine that as objectively immoral But I can’t As it’s within policy, not illegal etc.

I guess the reason why I fundamentally can’t agree it’s immoral is because I tend to prefer objective morality rather than irrational subjective morality When possible

For example if every year I buy the new iPhone, in the world of the iPhone Pro it means I buy the high end of both of normal f the pro model to see not only which one I prefer between the 2 but if either are worth the price difference between my current model.

In this hypothetical, if I calibrated my TV with one during my testing, for you that’s OK because I was trying it to see if I “liked it” the “it” being the phone.


Where as if I order one alongside The Apple TV now, to do the calibration you find that immoral because the primary thing I was wanting was the Apple TV.
From Apple’s perspective nothing is different, they still lose possession of the phone while I’m deciding and I’ll either keep it or I don’t.

The only difference is they get additional opportunity to convince me to upgrade my phone (which could happen upgrades in the software could change my mind if I was on the fence prior)
so technically it’s a potential net benefit for them or worst-case a net neutral.


Because the outcome is the same in either scenario, I can’t say one’s moral & one’s not.

If one of the scenarios involved either a breaking policy or breaking law etc. other than at least in my eyes an argument could be made that maybe theirs a difference in morality,
but when you’re within all guidelines both legal and moral and the outcomes for both parties in the transaction are the same
I can’t see why one is immoral while one wouldn’t be.

anyway I don’t think this conversation will convince either side so I’m done trying to explain to you as it seems your morals aren’t consistent and while I understand what your saying I can’t agree With your subjectivity that seems to be very arbitrary case by case despite consistent outcomes agreed too by both parties.

thanks for the conversation though

 

[_Refurbished_]

you didn’t tell me why it’s morally wrong.

you’re implying the systems only for returns that meet your personal arbitrary standards of why you should return a device, Else it’s a “exploit”.

unlike plenty of businesses Apple doesn’t stipulate it needs to be returned only if it’s damaged, their error etc. otherwise there’s a restocking fee etc.

they leave it ambiguous stating you can return it for any reason because they realize people might not “like it” for a multitude of arbitrary reasons, but they realize overall they make more money leaving it open ended.


for your suit analogy for me to determine whether i find it personally immoral I would need to see the terms and conditions for the theoretical store, but plenty of stores discourage that with restocking fees etc.
Even if the store if the allows the return, for me to determine whether it was immoral in my opinion it would help to know what happens to the returned product.


For example, Apple will resell, reuse or worse case refurbish & resell that <insert product here>

some stores don’t do that with clothing returns due to potential sanitary problems, which then adds environmental moral concerns etc.

so morally I think it’s comparing apples to oranges.


fundamentally most businesses do factor in loss/shrinkage whether it be from stolen goods to returns, So it’s up to you whether you determine that as objectively immoral But I can’t As it’s within policy, not illegal etc.

I guess the reason why I fundamentally can’t agree it’s immoral is because I tend to prefer objective morality rather than irrational subjective morality When possible

For example if every year I buy the new iPhone, in the world of the iPhone Pro it means I buy the high end of both of normal f the pro model to see not only which one I prefer between the 2 but if either are worth the price difference between my current model.

In this hypothetical, if I calibrated my TV with one during my testing, for you that’s OK because I was trying it to see if I “liked it” the “it” being the phone.


Where as if I order one alongside The Apple TV now, to do the calibration you find that immoral because the primary thing I was wanting was the Apple TV.
From Apple’s perspective nothing is different, they still lose possession of the phone while I’m deciding and I’ll either keep it or I don’t.

The only difference is they get additional opportunity to convince me to upgrade my phone (which could happen upgrades in the software could change my mind if I was on the fence prior)
so technically it’s a potential net benefit for them or worst-case a net neutral.


Because the outcome is the same in either scenario, I can’t say one’s moral & one’s not.

If one of the scenarios involved either a breaking policy or breaking law etc. other than at least in my eyes an argument could be made that maybe theirs a difference in morality,
but when you’re within all guidelines both legal and moral and the outcomes for both parties in the transaction are the same
I can’t see why one is immoral while one wouldn’t be.

anyway I don’t think this conversation will convince either side so I’m done trying to explain to you as it seems your morals aren’t consistent and while I understand what your saying I can’t agree With your subjectivity that seems to be very arbitrary case by case despite consistent outcomes agreed too by both parties.

thanks for the conversation though

I did tell you why it's morally wrong:

"You're using a system that is designed to return a device if you don't like it, which is the purpose of a return period. The freedom to return a device if it doesn't work out for your needs.

Your advice, however, is to exploit this system for your own benefit to calibrate your Apple TV on Apple's dime (Apple will lose money in this process, as it costs money to handle a return)."

 

[vipergts2207]

Ugh. Unsubscribe.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I did the calibration on my Sony Bravia 4k and can't tell much of a difference.

 

[paulsydaus]

This sucks. I hate the colors on my ultra short throw Samsung projector and was dying to fix them.

Yeah it sucks.
The problem is there is no way that third parties can install ICC profiles on tvOS 14.5. I don’t even think iOS 14.5 allows this. And for that very reason it is a complete joke that Apple thinks the iPad Pro can be considered a professional device for illustrators, photographers, videographers etc.
XRite does have an iOS app but last time I checked you can only view calibrated images from within their app. It is not a system wide profile. iOS is a toy OS…

 

[ani4ani]

OK, I’ll spend 5 minutes:

1: noone is pretending the “car stereo” is being modified, or the speakers made better. This is equal to your speakers having too much bass, and the Spotify app having a better bass control than your stereo, so you can OPTIONALLY use that to get better sound in the end.

Actually, look at the music server app called Roon, for Home audio. It includes a room correction feature, where you can use an external microphone to correct the sound in your room, even if your speakers/amp don’t have that feature. This is a great feature, which CAN improve the final result if used properly. So yes, it completely can make sense to adjust the source to compensate for errors later in the chain.

2: The thing you got “spectacularly wrong”, is that you claimed that this feature somehow proves that the Apple TV doesn’t ouput a correct signal. If you leave this feature alone, the output of the Apple TV is accurate. It is of course no longer accurate if you DO use the feature, since it is now countering the TV’s inaccuracies, but that is not what you stated.

Actually, those who have tested ATV have shown that it isn’t particularly accurate, displaying a green bias. As for TV inaccuracies well they’re rife on most, e.g. LCD TVs are basically incapable of displaying “black“ so it doesn’t matter what the “calibration“ determines is needed, the TV (especially cheap TVs) are incapable of coping and will still display grey or muddy green nonetheless. None of this takes into account the contrast capabilities of the TV and the led lighting methods, so again, the calibration can determine how the signal needs to be conditioned, but if your TV is incapable of displaying the signal it’s plain incapable, simple as. No different to Spotify or an equaliser turning your 10w speakers to sound like you're in the Albert Hall...it might make them sound better (or different) but thats it.

 

[Velli]

Actually, those who have tested ATV have shown that it isn’t particularly accurate, displaying a green bias. As for TV inaccuracies well they’re rife on most, e.g. LCD TVs are basically incapable of displaying “black“ so it doesn’t matter what the “calibration“ determines is needed, the TV (especially cheap TVs) are incapable of coping and will still display grey or muddy green nonetheless. None of this takes into account the contrast capabilities of the TV and the led lighting methods, so again, the calibration can determine how the signal needs to be conditioned, but if your TV is incapable of displaying the signal it’s plain incapable, simple as. No different to Spotify or an equaliser turning your 10w speakers to sound like you're in the Albert Hall...it might make them sound better (or different) but thats it.

Once again, you are arguing statements that noone made. And it’s not true that a poor display doesn’t benefit from more accurate colors, just because it doesn’t make it perfect.

How accurately it actually is, that’s another discussion. I’m disagreeing with you in the principal theory, I completely agree that an actual calibration is better, and that not even that circumvents the capability of the hardware.