Wireless faster than Wired, So Dumb.

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Jazwire, Nov 2, 2015.

  1. Jazwire macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #1
    Way to save a few cents by not making Apple TV with Gigabit ethernet.

    Literally the most assinine thing I've seen on an Apple product so far.

    So either you can choose:
    Top Latency or Highest Throughput but not both.

    For people trying to justify it with you don't need Gigabit Ethernet, then why have AC? When N is around the speed, sometimes more than 100 Ethernet anyway. They should have just omitted ethernet altogether if they are gonna use 90's technology.

    Complete SMH when I realized this, Geez Apple why didn't you just make it Apple Talk, might of added another dime in profit.
     
  2. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #2
    What exactly is it that needs "top latency" and "highest throughput" on an Apple TV?
    802.11ac is not just about speed. It also can maintain more stable performance over longer distances than 802.11n due to its beamforming capability.
     
  3. boltjames macrumors 68030

    boltjames

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    #3
    Remember, Apple TV is the most family-friendly device Apple makes. This isn't a MacBook Pro or even an iPhone 6. It's a basic peripheral for a television with a grade-school UI.

    As such, Mr. & Mrs. TV Viewer aren't the types to have Gigabit ethernet, I'd bet only 10% of the audience even has the likes of FiOS with its 500mbps max and it's 100mbps reality. Whether wi-fi or ethernet, the Apple TV is probably delivering 20mpbs to most because that's all the throughput they have in their homes anyway.

    BJ
     
  4. Jazwire, Nov 2, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2015

    Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #4
    I am a fanboy too, but don't make excuses for using 90's tech in a next gen device. Congrats to Apple on the extra few cents in profit, opposed to not giving consumers dated technology. I'll use wireless on AppleTV , not because it's optimal but because it's optimal with this particular device. I don't see any mass produced cars being made with carburetors. Well apple is making a car maybe it will come with one and AM only radio.

    You don't need Fios to utilize gigabit.
    Nearly everyone in our area has 130/5 service as a minimum. Also for people who plan on using Plex you will certainly notice.

    And like I stated Wireless N is already in most cases faster than 100mb Ethernet so why go with AC then?
     
  5. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #5
    AC is the standard chipset in the devices paired with the A8. It was an easy no brainer. It also provides more bandwidth at range due to beam forming.

    Ethernet: A8 was designed for mobile handhelds, no built in ethernet phy. They are using a USB2.0 to 10/100 bridge chip. USB2.0 doesn't have close to gigabit speed, there are probably limited bridge chip options.
    They probably reused the chipset out of http://www.amazon.com/Apple-USB-Ethernet-Adapter-MC704LL/dp/B00W7W9FK0/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

    Additionally 100mbps is more than acceptable for AppleTV's designed use, of streaming 4-8mbps h.264 1080P content.
     
  6. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #6
    Well, I'm not.
    I notice you haven't answered the question. What exactly do you think GigE would accomplish in an Apple TV? Why should it include hardware that not only costs more but also consumes significantly more power if the device doesn't do anything that can utilize it? And why stop at GigE (which, BTW, was also developed in the 90s)? You could just as well demand a 10Gbps port.
     
  7. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #7
    I wish they would have put in a gig also, but this doesn't effect me one bit using plex on my current setup of ATV 3. I have been able to stream without any issues.
     
  8. Mac... nificent macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    #8

    Good question. Noticed they didn't (couldn't) answer. Weird :D

    On a side note Apple TV 4 has 2GB ram, which will help it with improved video caching and overall better performance playing games, and app usage. It's internal identifier is 5,3. The last public version was 3,2 revealing many internal revisions took place before this hardware was finally decided upon.
     
  9. Jazwire, Nov 2, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015

    Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #9
    Consumes "significantly" more power? Really... that's your answer? The amount of power 10/100 vs 10/100/1000 consumes is so insignificant that it "might" cost a few more pennies over decades in electricity. It's not a mobile device.
    I'll answer your question:
    First is, it is just extremely dated tech in a "next gen" device, other streaming devices have it why not AppleTV, its suppose to be a "premium piece of hardware".

    Yes as of right this minute there are very few (though some) reasons for anything faster than 10/100 but that could change in the next year or 2. Why limit the hardware?

    Imagine a "personal media" app that exposed itself as a file server on the network and let you upload your own videos for later playback. Those apps will be there, and could have had faster upload speeds.

    Plex downloads - Photo,images...

    Apps are limited to 200mb on AppleTV right? The rest is data streamed/downloaded, why wouldn't I want the fastest download? Over the next 1-2 year maybe some apps will be gigs in size (games) and since that data will need to be streamed to play why not have a faster connection?

    At least be truthful and say Apple just cut corners to be more profitable. Other than use some crap excuse like it uses more power and that's why. YA.... Right... The reason it has 10/100 and not 10/100/1000. $$$$$$$$
     
  10. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #10
    Not sure where your area is, but most of the folks where I live have 10/1 to 30/1 service. I pay a ridiculous amount for 100/5 service.

    For most usage, gigabit Ethernet on the AppleTV is not necessary.
     
  11. Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #11
    Live in the St Louis Metro area. Charter Spectrum starts at 130/4 here. I can get 200/10 fiber for $79.00 a month if i wanted too.
     
  12. Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #12
  13. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #13
    I haven't measured the ATV4 yet, but the ATV3 was extremely frugal in its power consumption (about 0.2W in standby and 1-2W during playback), and that matters since it's an always-on device and also has to deal with heat dissipation without a fan. A GigE port typically consumes several hundred mW more, which would approximately double the standby consumption for something that has no value for the purpose of the device.
    The hardware is not "limited", but tailored to the purpose and overall capabilities of the device. That's what good engineering is about.
    You assume that the CPU and the flash memory can keep up with GigE speeds. That's not obvious at all.
    I'm stating my opinions and that's all. Your insinuations that I'm lying are offensive, to say the least.
     
  14. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #14
    I pay $69.95/month for 100/5. The lowest speed starts at 5/1 for $39.95/month. Not everyone lives in an area where high speed is affordable or even accessible.

    I still maintain that for MOST users, gigabit ethernet would make no difference.
     
  15. Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    Guess I never realized how many people will tongue Apple's balls for any reason what so ever.
    This is pointless, they cut corners so that they could try to make 12 billion next quarter instead of 11 billion.
    That's the reason.

    AppleTV is just another streaming box, that doesn't even compare to other boxes currently available, hardware or even software wise.

    It was hyped and pumped to be this wonderful next gen tech by Apple, and it is clearly not.
    It probably would have been had Jobs been alive but alas he is not and Apple now is all about hype now.
    At least Jobs usually delivered on the hype.
     
  16. Hal~9000 macrumors 68000

    Hal~9000

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    #16
    [​IMG]

    Also I'd like to see you address Menel's common sense post at #5 that you conveniently seemed to have avoided responding to...
     
  17. Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #17
    Respond to what, there is no question.
    Didn't "avoid" anything.
    So they made the chipset that way, well then why make it that way. Other streaming boxes have gigabit ethernet. Why not Apples "Premium, Next Gen device."
    That right, because it is hyperbole is all.


    Done with this thread, Apple is milking profits and fanboys will defend any action the almighty does. I get it.
    Guess I am just on the other side of the fanboyism now.
     
  18. turbineseaplane macrumors 68020

    turbineseaplane

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    #18
    Everyone is forgetting why gigabit ethernet isn't in there..

    It's already on the Keynote slide (along with 4k) for next years Apple TV 5 to be an additional "here's what's new" upgrade bullet point.
     
  19. Jazwire thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jazwire

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #19
    ^ and I'm sure it will be named Lighting Ethernet and people will salivate over it.
    While the rest of the industry has likely moved on to 10gb ethernet.
     
  20. turbineseaplane macrumors 68020

    turbineseaplane

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    #20
    It will probably come in an all new "port" that's super thin so the Apple TV can be made "thinner" for no good reason and drive sales of adapter cables to use "lightning ethernet".
     
  21. boltjames macrumors 68030

    boltjames

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    #21
    Again, you are talking about a fractional portion of the Apple TV universe.

    Put it this way- Apple isn't a dumb company. They do the research. They know their business. If there was a need for Gigabit ethernet, 4K video, or any of the other emerging technologies it would be on the device. It's not. So it's simply not needed. It's no conspiracy. There's no profit motive. There simply isn't an audience big enough to support it.

    BJ
     
  22. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #22
    Actually most comparable streaming boxes don't, including the latest 4K FireTV and Roku. The Nvidia Shield does, but it's a significantly larger box with a fan that can get noisy.
     
  23. turbineseaplane macrumors 68020

    turbineseaplane

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    #23
    Doesn't having a 10/100 device on your switch slow everything down?
    I feel like I've heard that
     
  24. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #24
    No.
     
  25. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #25
    No, you're just whining about something the market has already declared as a moot point. Majority of people are perfectly fine with not having ethernet jacks because they're just fine with the wireless network. 500 million iOS devices were sold and yet, no one is bitching about the lack of ethernet jacks. Tens of millions of laptops were sold without ethernet jacks, still no problem.

    You don't like it, that's fine. Go buy a streaming box that has one, vote with your money by buying a Fire TV box or whatever.
     

Share This Page