Talk:Apple TV

Q2 Apple Statement

Please stop reversing the criticism of Apple TV in order to further its appeal. AlistairMcMillan insists that he is "Removing unsourced criticism" when there is in fact a source, the Q2 2007 Apple statement, which is official. The article states, "Apple made some interesting comments today during their Q2 Financial Results regarding their plans with the iPhone and Apple TV in the coming months.... Similarly they stated periodic updates and enhancements will be provided at no charge to Apple TV customers".

If you are an apple tool, stay away, because despite releasing a beautiful product, it's far from perfect and hasn't been updated nearly as often as iTunes or iPod. Chrisjustinparr (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple question for you Chris. Who is making the criticism? The facts that feed into the criticism are sourced, but not the criticism itself. If you can't provide a source, I'm going to remove that paragraph again. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please can we get someone to moderate this? I really don't want a personal argument from someone who likes to threaten my editing rights. Did you actually WATCH the Q2 results? Google it. The official webcast states that updates will be provided "free of charge" and to date, there has only been one update since this announcement. Also, the simple fact is there has been two updates so far. That is a hard fact, not just from Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, correct me. Apple TV was updated from 1.0 to 1.1 and 1.2 Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Point us to someone making that criticism. If we are going to have this in the article as a criticism that people make, then you have to point to whoever is making the criticism. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually OWN an Apple TV? It may be off-topic but I've had one for almost a year and the amount of updates are frustrating. Will a very busy discussion from Apple with an official reply acknowledging the lack of updates do or do I have to whip out the (updated) CNet review? Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I found the article by the way, sorry I added it a bit late. It was written today by Scott McNulty. His reliability can be assured by his biography that states that he is a Mac fan since 1999 with an English degree and regular editor to the unofficial apple weblog. The [1] criticizes the fact that "you can't buy content directly from the box, the lack of updates to the software, and the lack of DVR". He got the basis for his article from Yahoo's review of Apple TV. Chrisjustinparr (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to look a bit closer. It wasn't McNulty making the criticism, it was Ben Patterson who writes a blog for Yahoo! McNulty was just agreeing with him. I've edited the article to point directly to Patterson's blog. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Limitations"

In the article:

iTunes and QuickTime support

According to some users, the "Export to Apple TV" option in QuickTime, is no "speed demon".[65] Performance improvements may be found with a QuickTime-compatible hardware acceleration device for H.264 encoding.[66]

How is this a limitation of Apple TV? —Tokek (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not. If you don't like it in that section, remove it or move it elsewhere. Foobaz·o< 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This was originally included to offset the following: "Apple included an "Export to Apple TV" option in an update to their QuickTime software that was released days before Apple TV started shipping. This allows content in some formats that the device does not support to be re-encoded into accepted formats for playback on the device." I agree, it is probably outdated now, anyway. Aswick 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

Functionality

With the release of 2.1 does this section need to be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondaig (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been updated for Take 2, and the point update didn't change anything except add "genres" and fix bugs. TMC1221 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Look and Feel"

This section is in dire need of an update since the new Apple TV software has been released and it looks (and feels, for that matter) completely different. Demosthenes, blog 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OS

Why are we calling it 10.4.7 based when it should just be called Apple TV OS 2.3, based on Tiger, etc? We don't call the iPhone's OS 10.5.X, but iPhone OS. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Profitability

I don't know if this fits in Wikipedia but it seems that apple tv isn't entirely profitable. This site includes lots of info so should this info be included? http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070606_984317.htm?specialreport=iphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 07:21, November 25, 2008

The Business Week article is based on analysis by iSuppli. The iSuppli analyses are well known for being basically one step away from guesswork. Not really the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we are looking for. Anyway given that the Apple TV is basically a kiosk for the iTunes Store and that the concept of loss leaders is so well known that we even have an article for it (loss leaders), I'm not really sure if this is worth noting. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Total agreement; iSuppli isn't known for stunning accuracy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This info was originally included in the article, but was removed due to the content being based on conjecture/opinion. See change & comment 7/20/2007 08:55 by Stephen Shaw. Aswick 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Future

Any ideas of how we can incorporate future functionality, such as the Magic Wand patent without straying into opinion/rumor/conjecture? Perhaps we shouldn't?

76.164.114.151 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Specification

In the specifications there was a section at the bottom for disclaimers. if there is need to do this use citations. I have moved the 'disclaimers' into there appropriate sections
Remeber this is not an advert for Apple TV 60.241.85.126 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Look and feel

Apple TV is "simple to operate"

• say what? this is subjective and should not be the beggining of a section.
• putting double quotes around this statement and citing it does not make it less so

the beginning line of this section should be changed to "Apple Inc aims for", "Apple Inc says". At the moment this looks to be subjective/ and to be advertising rather than objective 60.241.85.126 (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Remember that 2 years ago, Apple set the standard. From the article: "...Like the iPod, Apple TV is simple to operate...Amazon.com's online store is not as elegant as iTunes..." Should the statement be removed? Definitely, but not for the reasons you state, IMHO. This was a USA Today article (i.e. TiVo comparison), not an advertisement. Today, the user interface is dated and there are "easier" and "more elegant" interfaces available in other products (see *Limitations* for more info). Aswick 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

Bad comparison

"Apple also offers 4 Mbit/s H.264 720p HD movies for rental via iTunes.[136] For comparison, broadcast and cable HD movies are up to 19 Mbit/s MPEG2 720p and Blu-ray HD movies are up to 40 Mbit/s H.264 or VC-1 1080p."

Comparing 4 Mbit/s H.264 against 19 Mbit/s MPEG2 is meaningless, and will suggest to the lay-person that the former is worse quality, which may or may not be the case. They're different codecs so a bitrate comparison is meaningless and even misleading. --58.28.152.52 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Edited article to remove MPEG2 comparison. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A computer is a programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data//information, and provides output in a useful format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer

Mac Mini comparison

I am not sure why we need this comparison in the article any longer for the following reasons:

• Apple TV is not a computer, and the Mac Mini is not a set-top box.

A computer is a programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data//information, and provides output in a useful format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer

• Front-row on the Mac Mini/OS X vs. Front Row on Apple TV are completely different.
• Apple TV can only be controlled by a remote. If the Mac Mini were only controlled by a remote, the functionality would be severely limited.

All of these points were made in the article, but they continue to be removed for some "pro-Mac Mini/anti-Apple TV" purpose. The original intent of this particular content was to show how the Apple TV was a natural migration from OS X Front Row (iMac, Mac Mini, etc.) to an "easier-to-setup and use" Apple device (with a more robust Front Row interface). Since the original content was included, Front Row has changed on both OS X and Apple TV, but not enough to justify that the Mac Mini is a premium Apple TV device (which it isn't). 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

I think the AppleTV article as it now stands already blurs the distinction between computer and set-top box. Please take a look at the very large section on Hacks which include multiple examples of attempts to make the AppleTV more like a Macintosh computer. Mentioning the MacMini is not a Pro-Mini effort here. The Mini and the AppleTV are closely related in size, remote control, and common application as a HTPC. In fact there are many articles, blogs, and how-to sites that compare the two products head to head. See this google search [2]. Now to answer your bullet points above directly:

Okay, but why not also compare to a Windows-based machine connected to the TV? To compare the two, there needs to be an even basis for doing so. Front Row is a common factor.-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both are computers, but the AppleTV is not designed with an open software architecture like the Mini. The mini has more capabilities than the AppleTV, but that does not preclude it from being used as a dedicated HTPC / Set-top box.

We are saying the same thing. Technically, they are both computers, but ATV as a device is a crippled computer. The full-featured computer (Mac Mini) will always win any comparison in this mode.-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Differences between their front row applications can be noted, but the Mini also allows for much more sophisticated HTPC applications like Plex and Boxee without resorting to hacks. Same goes for using codecs; AppleTV is designed with limited codec support compared to what's easily available for the Mini.

Agreed.-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that AppleTV can only be controlled with a remote seems to be negative rather than a positive. MacMini can be controlled by both a remote and a keyboard / mouse. Once configured, a Mac Mini works wonderfully with the remote only but users do still have the option of using a keyboard if they choose. This is particularly helpful when doing full text searches for streaming content from Youtube, Netfix, and Hulu (among others). I will add that the AppleTV is more dependent on having other computers in the home for the purposes of hacks and expansion.

This is a matter of opinion. Some folks do not want keyboards to the TV, some do. I, for one, would rather only use my universal remote on the TV and whip out the laptop for a browser. Normally a good search should work on the first few letters anyway.-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a little unsure why you would be so concerned about this comparison since it's often made. I have a much bigger concern that the article stresses hacks so much. This is akin to writing about a car model, and then have a large section dedication to custom modifications that are not original.Mattnad (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the hacks -- they should almost become their own separate article. Does the Mac Wikipedia article have a section on running Linux instead of OS X? Probably not. The hacks section has been trimmed-down quite a bit from what it used to be.-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your latest version of the Mac Mini comparison looks better, but I still think the only way to do an even comparison is to look at each of the ATV features to see how each solution will fare. Following is an example:

Connectivity

• Even comparison, although Mac Mini keyboard/mouse may also be needed. Both can operate standalone or connected.

Internet media services

• Using FrontRow only: no YouTube on Mini, can order movies and TV shows, podcast favorites, MobileMe/Flickr, and parental controls on ATV. Advantage ATV.
• Using non-FrontRow UI for Media Services: advantage Mini (not sure this comparison note needs to be made?)

AirTunes

• Advantage ATV

Remote control

• Both use Apple Remote, ATV can be programmed for any infrared remote. Advantage: ATV
• Mini can use a keyboard. Advantage Mini, although some users may not want a keyboard.

Local Network Media

• No sync mode or photo streaming in FrontRow on Mini. Advantage: ATV

Look and Feel

• Front Row only with remote: advantage ATV (see above).
• Ability to use OS X, Boxee or other front-end, with or without keyboard: advantage Mini (voids ATV warranty).

Content Support

• Advantage: Mini.

-- 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm up for making the comparison more exhaustive, but it may exceed what we'd want in this article. I think the original purpose of this section was to a) present fundamental factual differences and b) acknowledge that comparison between the two are common. While I agree some Windows PCs could be compared to ATV, the mini is a lot closer to the ATV than anything out there. As for your list above, I can see where we could get bogged down on the basis of comparison so perhaps we can agree on fundamentals - let the ATV article speak for the ATV and this section can highlight major differences. I'd add we probably don't want to use hacked ATVs for comparison since that's not a common or Apple supported application.Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree. My point in the list above is that what the ATV does out of the box is quite a bit different than what Mac Mini does with its Front Row interface. The referenced ATV vs. Mac Mini article from 2007 says "The slick Apple TV interface is effectively a modified Front Row", but this was before YouTube, AirTunes and iTunes Store were added to ATV (and not to the OS X Front Row interface, although you can also hack OS X to get it. ;) ) Both ATV and the Mac Mini are made by Apple, use OS X at the core and have a similar form factor, but this is where the similarity ends. I can sit on the couch with my Macbook and a 20-foot cable to the TV and also state that my setup is better than ATV and fixes its limitations, but again, this is an unfair comparison. It is not a substitution. If this section has to be included, then I agree, high-level differences are best. Perhaps the Front Row differences I noted belong in the "Look and Feel" section.-- 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

I don't think Mac Books are popular for dedicated hometheater applications like the mini, but I understand your point. Like I wrote before, the comparison between the Mini and ATV is common in published sources and that's what's guiding me. You have a point of view, but I think we should be guided by WP:RS rather than our opinions. So for instance, when you once wrote that the mini is practically impossible to use without a mouse and keyboard (for Home Theater Applications), I did not see that comment in any source you provided. Perhaps a more accurate comparison is that the ATV works out the box with remote only, but the mini needs a keyboard and mouse for set-up and maintenance. And I'd prefer to see sources for much of what we include.

Historically, folks were actually using Mac Minis with Front Row and the remote as HTPCs prior to the introduction of ATV. I don't dispute that and have read the articles. My point now is that information is dated. 2007 Front Row no longer applies, and if you want to go the Mini/Boxee route to bring it up to date, why not also compare to a small form factor Dell/Boxee that is half the price of a Mini?

I provide sources for almost everything I provide in an article, you can check my ATV article additions over the past 2-1/2 years. For the specific details you are referring to (keyboard), that fact (not opinion) is actually in the comments section of the referenced article. If you would like to help me provide a more reliable source, please do. In this case, the author of the referenced article did not provide enough technical detail, but his readers sure did. I understand that this should be removed in accordance to Wikipedia policy. I would not have had a problem if you would have changed the sentence to what you just mentioned. Also, the first sentence of the Mac Mini section was noted by the "Good Article" reviewer as an opinion. It should probably be reworded.-- 23:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One other point, the Mini is intended to accept software in addition to what comes out of the box and that ease of enhancement is an important feature that published sources focus on (again per WP:RS). So while it's possible to use Boxee on the ATV, that's against Apple's terms of use, whereas it's fine on the Mini per Apple's design.Mattnad (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So after 12 months, why not load Boxee on Apple TV? Boxee was designed for both the Mac and ATV, and unlike the iPhone bricking due to hacks, I have not yet seen any articles relating to bricked ATV units due to hacks. Boxee on ATV is no different than OpenWRT on a Linksys router. Overall, I still feel it is wrong to compare a device to a fully-functional computer/HTPC, but maybe it is just me.  ;) Thanks for your comments.-- 23:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm wondering generally the point of the whole comparative section. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the mini is part of Apple's portfolio and often compared to the ATV. See [3]. And then there's all of that software being developed to make the Mini a much fuller featured HTPC -- the ATVs sole focus. Finally product line comparisons are very common in Wikipedia. See Porsche_Cayman#Performance for instance. Mattnad (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because they're common doesn't mean they're always useful or relevant. Though I'm not saying this is particularly a bad example, but some work needs done generally to weed out the do it yourself how to guide feel, which is not something Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines favours. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about the DIY/guide feel, cut the hacks section out. That's goes so far outside of the norm that it voids Apple's warranty. The mini works as a dedicated HTPC out of the box with Front Row and the stock Apple remote, and adding readily available software is not exactly DIY by comparison to the AppleTV hacks. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I see a double standard in your counterpoint.Mattnad (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the hacks section and have already trimmed the section to get rid of the DIY/guide feel. Where do you think XBMC came from? Take a look at the Xbox Wikipedia entry, and you will see that mods/hacks are a major section of the article. There is also a mods section in the Mac Mini Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an Apple marketing brochure. Wouldn't a Wikipedia comparison article be more applicable, where you could also include competing media center devices such as TiVO and Roku? Something similar to this? -- 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

Hi Aswick. I agree with you that the Hacks section is probably fine. I was commenting about Nja247's application of a guideline to one section that would apply more to another.Mattnad (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am curious myself as to what in the remaining content pertains to DIY. Let me try something with the history section that might make the Mini section flow better with the rest of the document.-- 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations in Mods & Hacks section

There are parts of this section that have long series of citations supporting a short sentence or two I’m wondering whether editors closer to the content can pick a few key citations to provide the needed support rather than the long lists we have now.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what Nja247 was referring to as DIY? Some of those links point straight to DIY/tutorial pages. I am probably responsible for a few.-- 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswick (talk • contribs)

Generally yes. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Much improved IMHO. Mattnad (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apple TV/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Be aware that the process may take up to a week for me to get a thorough review. I know you have been waiting patiently, as I saw this at the back of the GAN backlog. Please be patient to allow me to give a thorough review. Thank you.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary Comments

• Article is stable, and therefore passes #5 in the Good Article Criteria
• Images are propperly tagged, and free images are used where possible. Images are relevant, so article also passes #6a and #6b.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• One {{fact}} tag was found in the Remote Control section. Please reference or remove statement.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I am placing this article on hold pending the fixing of one {{fact}} tag in the "Remote Control" section. References are important!--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   minor MoS issues, such as: date linking. Minor prose issues, such as use of contractions, but, these issues aren't enough for me to fail the article on this criterion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1 {{fact}} tag found in Remote Control section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for one fact tag, which can be easily fixed.

I edited that paragraph. Parts of it were old news - meaning some of the challenges were corrected with later software updates. And frankly I could not find a reliable source (e.g., aside from forums and hacker sites) that mentioned the limitations of the remote. To a a degree, it's a little like people complaining that a Porsche 911 doesn't get good gas mileage when towing a trailer. Sure the limited remote comes up, but it's tangential to the core of the article and the appliance.Mattnad (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warrior4321's comments

I'd like to add a few things that were not mentioned. Warrior4321 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Wikilink Jeff Carlson leads to a disambiguation page.
• The lead's second paragraph needs to be expanded, as the article constitutes of 33336 characters currently. According to WP:LEAD, the article should have two to three paragraphs.
• Reference 127 is dead.

• I think I've address all of these. The most obvious is the lead. Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I'm going to go ahead and Pass the article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 01:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced content

AshtonBenson (talk · contribs) Can someone please remove that badly source content he keeps adding? And also back me up here that we need content to be backed up by reliable sources and we don't accept anonymous discussion forums as reliable sources? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This request constitutes the "recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" and is in violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. AshtonBenson (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "badly source content" is, but I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting my properly-footnoted contributions. If you have evidence which contradicts what I have written, I cordially invite you to add it as well as a counterpoint; I promise not to delete it. AshtonBenson (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this for you again.

The Apple support document you have linked to doesn't mention "Digital Monitor Power Management" at all, and even though you claim other Apple products support DMPM doing a quick search of Apple's support pages shows that none of them mentions at all. http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asupport.apple.com+%22Digital+Monitor+Power+Management%22

And the Apple discussion forum you have linked to is an anonymous forum. Anonymous forums cannot be considered reliable. It's that simple. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: This is sort of a stale issue at this point, but Alistair is correct: forums are not considered reliable sources. Further, http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2671 can't be used to state "Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management". The page doesn't even mention power management on it, so to imply that it lacks support for such a thing is original research. I've gone ahead and removed the power section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as a warning, sockpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia policy and will result in bans. I don't know if 166.191.63.193 (talk · contribs) is AshtonBenson or not, but based on this edit, I would say so. I'd seriously recommend cutting out any sort of activity like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as a warning, meatpuppetry is a violation of Wikipedia policy and will result in bans. I don't know if User:HelloAnnyong is AlistairMcMillan or not, but based on this edit, I would say so. I'd seriously recommend cutting out any sort of activity like that. AshtonBenson (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion is one of the first step is resolving disputes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=358221499&oldid=358221034 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is NOT one of the first steps in resolving disputes. You seem to be confused. Moreover, you have gone to incredible lengths to avoid presenting any evidence to the contrary, which is highly suspicious. AshtonBenson (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinions aren't meatpuppetry, and they're definitely not sockpuppetry. In giving my 3O - as per the project guidelines - I acknowledged that I hadn't edited here before, and I was a wholly neutral party. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't give you the right to accuse either of us as meatpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are in error. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this matter: "recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus" is a violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. AshtonBenson (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AshtonBenson, if you continue to edit war on this page, your account is likely to attract a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, if it isn't already, asking for a third opinion is neither meat puppetry nor canvassing - it is one of the steps in dispute resolution. Meat puppetry requires a collusion of two or more to influence consensus, which is absolutely not the case here and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Between this discussion, the discussion on my talkpage, and the comments on AshtonBenson's talkpage, it should be clearly understood that 3O is not meat puppetry. —DoRD (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Power Management Limitations

Moving beyond AshtonBenson concerns about meapuppetry, the issue as far as I can tell is there is no reliable source to support an observation that has come up in forums and user reviews that the ATV does not send a signal to power down a monitor. The Apple Support document cited does not bring up this issue directly (but it can be inferred from that document if you're aware of an alternative approach).

So really, per WP:RS, we don't have anything that qualifies to support that claim. Unfortunately, forums and user reviews are not reliable sources. Anyone can post in a forum (no matter how official) and anyone can post a review on Amazon but that does not make it a reliable source. Personally, I don't think it's an incorrect observation of a limitation, but since this has been challenged, we need something a bit more concrete than what has been provided.

Keep in mind that the claim in question is "it has been widely reported that the Apple TV lacks support for DMPM". Posts in forums are obviously relevant to that specific claim. AshtonBenson (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If we can't come to an agreement here, would a review on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) help settle things?Mattnad (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Ashton doesn't seem interested in observing policy or working with other editors here, is there much point? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets see what he says. I'm hoping that if AshtonBenson doubts the current participants on this talk page, he'll still be willing to consider the views of editors complete removed from this forum. Mattnad (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There has not been a single shred of evidence presented that the Apple TV has support for DMPM. I see no reason to continue this debate until such evidence is presented. AshtonBenson (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, listen. The text you're adding - particularly in this edit - was particularly heavy on synthesis of materials. You're using a handful of inappropriate sources to come to some conclusion, which is both a violation of WP:RS and WP:SYN. I've warned you twice now about this, even though you keep blanking the warnings from your talk page. You have three editors telling you that the text you're adding is inappropriate. If you don't stop this disruptive editing, it will be reported. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I have three meat puppets vandalizing my careful contributions. That will be reported. AshtonBenson (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You can report what you like but there is no conspiracy. I assure you, this is hardly an issue worth conspiring about (really). It's just a simple application of the reliable sources guidelines. If you can find a reliable source for this, nobody will prevent you from adding it. Also, you may want to read up on assuming good faith in editing. Mattnad (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an update: per this edit on RSN, that makes four editors who don't believe the sources support the text. At this point I think a consensus has been established, and we really have only one very tendentious editor. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really widely reported either

One added point. I note that AshtonBenson is believes this claim has been "widely reported." Showing up in a few forums and possibly user reviews is not "widely reported." Putting aside our reliable source concerns what you cited is extremely narrow in "reporting", indirect, and anecdotal. The stolen iPhone prototype is an example of a "widely reported" story.Mattnad (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Grumble grumble. . . I really was hoping to keep my beginner contributing out of here, but my linguistics are apparently needed. Mattnad, obviously you are the maintainer here, now I am going to teach you some English. A report is a notification that something has occurred, hence the report of a firework. So, reports issued in forums are reports. News reports are very different to individual incident reports. You exampled the iPhone prototype articles. There was actually only one or two source reports that were parroted by the masses. Then there are the EVO 4G screen spot issues that are not widely reported by news outlets but are very easily found on forums (it has happened to me twice). Yes, forums are normally bad news bears for this type of information, but the rules set forth are to prevent misinformation. The issue, if verifiable by enough sources, should be taken into consideration as a possible addition. Which is what the Talk page is for. Some facts might not be published by a 'trusted' editorial, but they are facts nonetheless. To the Editors hawking this page, as editors you must use one or two neurons to decide if, in fact, the information is completely untrue or not. Wikipedia is not legally liable if a statement it makes is true. The reliable sources guidelines are guidelines. If you are going to be overzealous about something that can be proven as fact then there is a content bias. In the matter at hand, any single positive result for the existence of DMPM that can be considered reliable then the matter is settled. Also:[4] Apple released information regarding the Apple TV NOT turning displays off. I believe that is the issue found on all the forums. I'm just saying: you guys were wrong. Daniellis89 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit late to the discussion but I think you should read up on a) what constitutes a reliable source for wikipedia (see WP:RS) and b) what constitutes original research (see WP:OR). The apple support article you cited does not support the claims of the now banned editor (hence original research), and musings about it on a couple of forums do not constitute a reliable source. Your opinion is not shared by the many editors who weighed in on this in other forums. But feel free to grumble. Mattnad (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Posting at WP:RSN about the Digital Power Management discussion

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Apple_TV_and_discussion_about_Digital_Monitor_Power_Management where I've posted our dispute for third-party assistance. Mattnad (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

QuickTime Engine

The labelling of ref 129 appears to be out of uniform with the rest. Usually the comma comes before the ref, and ref 129 is the only area where it comes after.^{(According to the "Find" option on my browser)} mechamind90 07:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The minor change has been made. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Limitations of Apple TV 2010 model

• Can't hookup to older TVs or monitors.
• Can't plug in USB flash drive or SD flash from cameras.
• Can't watch AVI / DVIX / XVID or most other video file formats.
• Doesn't display shows at 1080P HDMI.
• Doesn't support 1Gbit ethernet.
• No web browser.
• No TV tuner.
• No Hard Drive.
• No DVR capabilities.
• No iOS O/S, thus no apps.

Sbmeirow (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

These are not limitations. These are features that were deliberately left out. So for instance, you could also argue that the AppleTV does not have a screen like newer TVs that include netflix and other video on demand services. And if these things you list were added, you get a home theater PC that would cost more than $99, be a lot larger, and use a lot more energy.Mattnad (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

These are limitations. However shouldn't the wikipedia page maybe talk about how it is 'different' and list the actual things it can do and maybe how it is different to previous models not just what is possible on other media centers. As for personal opinion at $100 not supporting 1080p is pretty poor in comparison to the competition. 195.10.10.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

1080p is mostly a Blu Ray format. Most cable co and satellite content tops out at 720p or 1080i due to bandwidth limitations. This box is designed for downloaded or streaming video over people's home broadband connections. Apple is not selling or renting 1080p shows on iTunes, and Netflix is limited to 720p, so why would they add the cost now, for something that may or may not be needed in the future.

I caution us to not do a big list here of how it compares to every other media center. The place for that more comprehensive discussion of modern media centers and their relative limitations is on the Home theater PC article which also covers media centers.Mattnad (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One other thing. Apple has updated the Mac Mini with HDMI so from a portfolio perpective, the ATV is now more a digital media receiver and the Mini is the more feature rich HTPC. This article includes a section comparing the ATV to the Mini. Needs updating, but I think we should look at this the same way we do the iPod line. In that spirit, we don't critique the iPod nano or classic discussing limitions vs. the touch or other non-apple product.Mattnad (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of this discussion, I've deleted some punditry about what Apple should or should not do: "One such PVR idea says that Apple should buy TiVo and another mentions that Apple should go a step further and turn Apple TV into a fully-functional cable box. Critics against the DVR/TiVo idea mention that the DVR market is dead and call the DVR the "PDA of the living room"." PRRfan (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote a comparison to Boxee Box, Google TV and Roku. Daniellis89 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How to integrate the big hardware changes?

The sidebar right now shows the thing using an intel CPU, which is true of all the old models with hard drives. But the new model unveiled the other day uses Apple's own A4 chip, like the iPad or iPhone, instead. It's ARM-based, not x86-based. Here's the necessary cite:

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

I'm not sure how to integrate that info into the article with correct formatting, and since we're really talking about two different hardware device families with a lot of different specs, I'm not even sure what the right overall approach to take is. (Split into two articles? Two sections with two different sidebars? List of options within the sidebar?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfjdejulio (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That needs to be updated. Then in later sections, how about a bit of revamp with a table along the lines of what's done in the Mac Mini or iPod articles. See Ipod#Models. We need a lot less detail than these, but I think we're now at the point of major change. Mattnad (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Video out of original Apple TV

The specifications table for the original ATV says "1080p/1080i 60/50Hz (but maximum video resolution is 720p)". Can someone explain how it's both 1080P/1080i when it also says the maximum video resolution is 720p? Wouldn't that be 720P then without mention of 1080p/1080i? Mattnad (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've check Apple's specs. They say to use the Apple TV, you need "A widescreen, enhanced-definition or high-definition TV capable of at least one of the following resolutions: 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 576p, 480p." This is not the same as output. The Apple TV works with EDTVs and HDTVs with multiple resolutions, but it's output is limited to 720P as noted. This is no different from the current model which also works with 1080p HDTVs with video limited to 720p. See this article [5]. Mattnad (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some early HDTVs could accept 1080i, but not 720p signals, or displayed 720p badly. The ATV can only play 720p data files, but can turn them into a 1080i or 1080p signal so that such sets will work. (Although the picture won't look sharper then 720p.) Algr (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

All the apple technical specs say is that the ATV is compatible with TVs capable of playing 1080p or 1080i [6], but so is a standard resolution DVD player. Mattnad (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"No internal hard drive"?

I believe ifixit found that the newest apple tv has an 8 GB hard drive. The article says it has none at all. We might want to fix that. Or am i wrong? --69.242.155.122 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Flash memory, not a hard drive. For buffering and holding the OS.--Terrillja _talk 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. well, i put it had 8gb flash memory in the article, in place of no hard drive. Should I revert that, or is it fine how it is? --Thekmc (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that the 8 Gb flash memory is "for caching purposes"? That doesn't sound right. You only need to cache 5-20 seconds at most, and 8 Gb is four hours at the iTunes HDTV data rate. Also, Flash has a limited number of write cycles, so is best for data that sticks around for a while, like programs and user data, not caching. The 256 MB of ram would be better for that. Algr (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The source, ifixit suggested that it used it for caching. I see what you're saying though. Unfortunately, we probably won't ever have a solid answer unless apple tells us. --Thekmc (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I humbly (and amateurly ;) suggest that it may possibly be used to store iOS and the BootROM? - Alison ^❤ 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (speaking in my personal capacity only)

Yeah, it probably does hold the OS. I think the general consensus is that it is also for buffering video. I put in the article that it was for caching, but maybe we should change that. Or we could just take the part out all together. --Thekmc (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Features

The link supporting the statement on closed-captioning is dead, and I don't believe the statement about subtitles is still accurate. Is there another supporting link? --Skeptict (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Version history section

This very long list, Apple_TV#Version_history, with software changes (big and/or insignificant) is not really encyclopedic. I'm thinking this is too detailed and clutters the the article. Any comments? I'd like to remove it completely.Mattnad (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's entirely crufty. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What a mess

Some information belongs to both Apple TV 1 and 2, other to only one generation, sometimes this is indicated, sometimes it is not. I think the best thing the maintainers of this article could do, is to divide it into two sections, one for each generation, and duplicate information that still applies to Apple TV 2. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apple TV 2 - apps

Any idea if or when the Apple TV 2 will get apps? It's been rumored since day one. 173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC).