Sure, that only works if you don't have any appletv. Unfortunately, there are enough silly people that will upgrade to this over the previous version. Its a wasteful upgrade that wasn't needed as there isn't anything that we gain.
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.
New Apple TV and 10th-Generation iPad Both Feature Increased 4GB of RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they would just allow browsers on the Apple TV… Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and every TV would be a PC
The place where I've run into a problem with RAM on iOS, in a handful of extremely frustrating instances, is filling out a form in one tab (like a lengthy MacRumors or Reddit comment) in Safari, and opening a new tab to grab a URL or some such, and switching back to the previous tab and having Safari "helpfully" reload it, losing all of what I had typed. I've also had this happen opening another app to look something up. Admittedly that may be more of a problem of Safari being overly aggressive with memory management than the OS itself causing the problem, but it's a situation where more RAM wouldn't be a bad thing.
Frankly, there's only two problems raised by adding RAM to any iOS device - increased physical resource usage (electricity use / heat output), and increased price. In general, more RAM is better, because the OS will generally use "unused" RAM for keeping previous bits cached, so app switching and such is faster.
I expect Apple feels that experience is sub-par. I'm sure they've have it running in a lab somewhere for ages.
I just tried this, and I don't think it's possible. I know on Home screen I can change to "up next" or "what to watch" but even that doesn't seem to actually change anything. Unless I'm missing something, you can't display all apps on the home screen, or even specify different apps to highlight on the home screen. But if I'm missing a setting, I'd be happy to learn how to do it
Go to Settings, "Remotes and Devices", go to "TV Button". This will let you switch between "Apple TV App" and "Home Screen". Set it to Home Screen. The TV button on the Remote will then no longer go to the Apple TV+ page, but to the home menu. From the Home Menu you can go to Netflix, Disney, etc. as long as you have those installed.
That’s what a Mac mini is for… 😉
It very much is and always has been but the fact that you don’t notice is a testament to how well the system was designed from the very beginning to hide it.
All those apps in your app switcher? Maybe the front two are active. Maybe. If they aren’t doing much. The rest are just pictures and save states.
Only certain apps like Music were allowed to run in the background at first. They slowly opened that up but are very restrictive about background processes.
There are other examples but iPhones have always had surprisingly small amounts of RAM for the eras they were released in.
If Apple priced things based on their own costs, then the Watch bands would be 50 cents rather than 50 bucks
You’re correct. What I had originally said didn’t make sense, as, like you said, the HomePod mini can act as a hub for HomeKit cameras.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Maybe Apple is running out of enough the A12 soon? Or maybe there is more economy (profit) for Apple to use A15 instead?
I don't believe this product demands "constant upgrading." Maybe this is simply about selling new people a lower cost AppleTV that happens to have more power than the prior version... a very, very common approach for all tech sellers?
Those who already have the last gen 4K version probably do not need this one... anymore than those with iPhone 12/13 probably don't need iPhone 14... or those with M1 MBpro probably don't need M2 MBpro.
However, there are FARRRRRRRRRRR more people in the world who do not own an AppleTV at all. One of the biggest bits of rationale: "too expensive." This model costs considerably less than AppleTV cost a few days ago and offers more power. Maybe it will draw in some of them?
I've owned EVERY AppleTV from the beginning. I think it is a fantastic product, far underrated by even the fandom. It and iPad Mini 6 compete for what I would call my FAVORITE Apple product... and I make my living on Macs (have a Studio Ultra). I purchased the 128GB version yesterday, mostly to get the ethernet port. Why? I've noticed that every upgrade's greater power makes all of it work better/faster/etc (the same rationale we use to spend thousands on upgrading other stuff from Apple). Stutters seem to become fewer with more robust hardware. UI is more fluid. The ability to playback everything is improved.
Anyone who upgraded to an iPhone 13/14 because their XS or so was feeling "long in tooth" mostly spent that fresh approx. $1000 for the chip inside this product. That XS or so also had a great camera, case, battery, screen too... and also ran pretty much all the apps a 13/14 can run. Why was it worth $1000 but this is not worth $150?
The most unique thing about this ONE Apple product vs. all of the others is how we will fall all over ourselves to pay up for slightly more power in everything else- even setting alarm clocks to get up in the wee hours to try to be first to spend $1000+ to get one- but for this ONE product, no price is low enough. IMO, Apple has done a terrible job of presenting the value proposition of AppleTV. Even the fandom expresses their valuation doubts.
I've paid much more than $150 for far weaker prior generations of this very product. Gen 1 ran on a Pentium M processor, could only output (barely) 720p and started at $299. I happily paid the $399 to get a whopping 160GB of spinning hard drive storage inside.
Had this rolled out at $199 or even $249, I would have quickly grabbed one yesterday too. Given how useful and enjoyable it is for me and mine, I'd probably have jumped on it at upwards of $299. iPhone 13 Pro Max power for only $130-150 seems beyond a bargain to me.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The same could be said for every other Apple product. Android phones can be had for much less than iPhone. PCs can be had for much cheaper than Macs. Amazon tablets are much cheaper than iPad.
Can those do most of what we do with iPhone, Macs and iPad? Yes. Can they do it about as well? While that's more eye of the beholder, the general answer probably leans towards yes (except among rabid fanboy/defenders).
So why does Apple exist at all? Why are they often #1 on the list of most valuable companies in the world? Apparently, the Apple versions of all of these products do deliver more than "about the same" as much cheaper alternatives of the same products. Else, there is some mass delusion moving millions of people to pay much more for little-to-no tangible personal gain.
I have AppleTV and Roku and much prefer AppleTV. I've had Firestick and did not find it close to as smooth and generally as good as AppleTV (ended up giving it away because I couldn't sell it for even $5). Now, if someone is only wanting to use streaming services and is OK with UI differences, the cheapest stick can generally stream streams just as good as my Mac Studio Ultra or a loaded PC with a 4090 graphics card. The differences will be in "the rest" which is generally the same that helps iPhone, iPad and Mac buyers rationalize paying up for the other Apple products too.
For your hotel, I wouldn't want to install AppleTV in every room myself... both due to cost and expectation of many thefts. However, if a guest steals a stick, no big deal at stick pricing. You can probably replace it for less than stolen towels with a little shopping around.
Why something like that has not happened yet amazes me. I certainly see why Apple has not done it, but not why some un-named entity that exists solely to scrape users' personal data has not yet done it.
I’m pretty sure that Apple won’t allow browsers on the App Store for Apple TV. This would undercut sales of so many more expensive devices once the general public caught on.
But I'm comparing an Apple product price to an Apple product price. Not to the cost of the parts. 😀
You're probably hung up on the mention of the $60 remote. However I didn't subtract $60 from the $150 price of the ATV. Otherwise I would have said you can buy 7 ATVs for the price of a $699 M1 Mac Mini and still have $70 leftover. 😀
That's why I said you would have $100 and 4 remotes in the drawers after buying 4 ATVS compared to buying an M1 Mini.
Becuase I know you wouldn't subtract out $60.
But not including a remote wouldn't subtract out next to nothing either relative to a $150 product.
I did not mean to imply a browser on Apple TV. Like I said, I certainly see why Apple has not done it. I meant cheap, simple set-top internet with text and mail done by a privacy thief like Google.
Totally understand. However, apple prides itself on the details. An increase in fps for the viewing experience is about one thing: the details. There may not be too much content available at the moment but is it irrational to request some level of future-proofing? Why not update the hardware with components that will have no impact on the bottom line/profitability?
Why bother investing the resources in something for which there's no content?
Why aren't you complaining that it doesn't support 8K, despite the fact there is 8K content out there.
Doesn't the idea of future-proofing fly in the face of the claim many make that Apple has planned obsolescence? Why would they sell you a device now, that supports something we likely won't see? Hollywood isn't shooting movies and TV in 120fps and likely won't ever. They aren't even generally shooting in 60fps.
No streaming service supports 120fps 4K. Netflix lets you test in 60fps but doesn't offer any content in such format.
Seems silly to demand a feature for which there is no content and no use now and won't likely be in the future.
Makes a lot more sense for Apple to concentrate on features that are available now. That'll sell a lot more devices than features that no one has any use for.
It's not really that so much as it would allow developers to circumvent the app store.
Same reason Safari is crippled on iOS and other browser engines are prohibited. You can't have people playing games in the browser and not paying their 30% cut
I think Apple would feel that this didn't offer a great experience, and I think this is one scenario in which they would see that mediocre experience as undercutting sales of Macs, iPhones, and iPads alike, for some people.
I mean, you can do this today with a Raspberry Pi*, for quite a bit less than an Apple TV, it just takes a little setup.
*: (Well, for the last little while Raspberry Pi's have been pretty hard to get hold of, with the supply chain disruptions.)
A Raspberry Pi 400 (which is basically a Raspberry Pi 4 inside a keyboard), comes in a kit for $100, retail, that includes the computer, keyboard, mouse, power supply, MicroUSB card, and cables. Though for a TV you'll likely want a much longer MicroHDMI->HDMI cable.
At that point, you've got a full Linux desktop system that is fairly capable, and can run a web browser just fine. And is designed for teaching school kids about computers, so not especially hard to use. And it doesn't mine any data from you.
I’m sure Apple would say something like that.
Whether I would believe them or not is questionable - lol
I suspect they would never offer something that was that capable and sensical, for so cheap, even if it performed well