Talk:Apple TV

"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 I agree, it is probably outdated now, anyway.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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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)

The claim that it voids the warranty is pure conjecture, since it is more reasonable that it is hardware modification that voids the warranty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.194 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2015 (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.wiki.x.io/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:[3] 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)

References

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 [4]. 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 [5], but so is a standard resolution DVD player. Mattnad (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The specs are correct - I still own an Apple TV 1st generation, and can confirm that it supports both 1080i and 1080p for everything except video content, in other words, the user interface, screensaver and, most importantly, for viewing photographs. The 720p limitation is only for video output. When the Apple TV is set to 1080p mode, it upscales 720p content (i.e. your TV's info button will still report that it's in 1080p mode). M0thr4 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2011 (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)

PNG Support?

Can Apple TVs really not display PNG images? They're not listed in supported image formats in this article. Michael Reineke (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Limitations including YouTube

As a user of the 2nd generation AppleTV I have found the limitations below. (Do they really need to be referenced before they can be accepted as true?)

• TV Shows is not available in my jurisdiction. I am in Switzerland though I use a UK based iTunes account. I'm not sure which factor is responsible (or both). But at least it may be worth noting that the TV Shows menu is not always available. There is no visible menu, although there is unused space to the left of the Movies menu, is that where TV Shows usually goes? Does anyone know what determines whether it is available or not?
• The device does not seem to be capable of differentiating my actual geographic location, from the geographic location of my iTunes account (and changing this is not so easy). It appears to behave as I am in the UK (or perhaps some "worst of both worlds" combination of Switzerland and the UK).
• While using the text input function, the screen resolution frequently resizes for no apparent reason, showing around a quarter of the screen area only. Usually cursoring away from the text input area causes the screen to resize back to normal.
• The physical remote is extremely limited as an input device and the device seems sub optimally programmed to use even the limited capabilities of the physical remote properly. In many contexts, some of the buttons on the remote do nothing, and a function you would expect to be provided by the unused button (eg left arrow goes back) is not available.
• The YouTube interface has the following limitations
  • It appears to search a subset of all YouTube videos. A search with a computer returns a much larger result set. (Possibly the search excludes playback types that Apple TV does not support?) Only limited sorting options are available.
  • It's not possible to search for a video by its unique ID, which would be useful given the limitations of the text entry and search interface in general.
  • History items can't be selectively deleted. This is irritating because searching involves lots of incorrect hits, but once you play a video (even for a second) it's on your history. The only option is to delete all history.
  • Playlist integration seems poor and patchy, taking times in excess of hours to synchronise from browser-based YouTube. Only a small subset of content in Playlists and Favourites is available. This appears to be a display limit on the device. More than the first 10 or 20 ? items can not be displayed or selected, and there is no way to scroll the list to get to additional items.

Also I agree that quite a few points in the article are unclear as to whether they apply to the first or second generation. These points should be clarified, and/or the article should be reorganised into two section (or split into two articles?).

Spike (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of specific limitations, assuming accurate, they may not meet notability or due weight guidelines unless referenced somewhere else. These are really detailed observations and for an encyclopedia article, are probably too much. Ask yourself, would the average reader want to wade through a list of things editors would like improved in the Apple TV (which is basically how I read your list).

There is no doubt that the AppleTV is not perfect, but unless this is verifiable from a mainstream reliable source, I would argue we exclude this per undue weight guidelines. Mattnad (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

potetial WSJ resource

Apple Plots Its TV Assault 19.December.2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Syncing only allowed on 1st gen Apple TVs

As I understand it, the 2nd & 3rd gen ATVs do not have user accessible storage, whereas the first gen ATVs had 40GB & 160GB versions. This large disk space was used for synchronization of content onto the 1st gen ATVs, allowed the computer from which they were sync'ed to be shutdown.

The first three paragraphs under "Local Sources" would seem to indicate that sync'ing is available for all ATVs, since it does not seem to frame the sync'ing information as pertaining to only the first gen models.

Has this been discussed, and am I missing something here? jeff (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

3G info

Is this waiting on anything? The third gen. has some significant differences that should be outlined. Sam metal (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

AppleTV

Will anything on my iPhone 4s play on appletv thru my wifi connection. I do have itunes latest ios on my PC and have home sharing on! Bill B 23 Sept 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.178.36 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad writing re format

"Attempts to sync unsupported content to Apple TV will draw an error message from iTunes."

This doesn't make sense.77Mike77 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Add mention of limited wifi issue?

Would it be appropriate to add information regarding the replacement program for some of the 3rd gen Apple TVs that were having wifi issues? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really encyclopedic IMHO. Mattnad (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

a good way to source this?

Apparently the Apple TV software update for 6.0 has been pulled for OTA, and allegedly the reason for this is that it's bricked a good quantity of Apple TVs. Where could I possibly source this? RIght now it's just a bunch of 2nd-hand info and shouldn't be included -- yet. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

apparently I forgot to say a few days later that the issue went away. sorry about that. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources Table

The list of features includes a disorganized and jumbled list of sources that could be better organized in a table. Also listing whether a cableTV subscription is required or if a subscription to the channel itself is required for viewing. That would help a lot of cord-cutters and others looking for info on how much it will cost to supplement viewing habits. Chicknfood (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

New category

I have created a new category for tvOS (Apple TV) software. If you encounter any articles that have Apple TV apps, please tag them with Category:TvOS software.

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"tvOS" vs. "TvOS" (or "TVOS")

In response to this edit the only applicable section I could find was Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks which states to avoid stylization "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character when discussing the subject", and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names: "Exceptions are made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources". Apple refers to the OS exclusively as lower-case "tvOS", similar to iOS, and virtually every reference in news media is as "tvOS", never "TvOS". "TvOS" itself is an awkward halfway capitalization as TV is an initialism, if stylized capitalization was truly being ignored it would be "TVOS".--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Did some digging myself focusing on news that wasn't tech focused and even there only saw "tvOS", though often in scare quotes. Searching Bing news gets similar results to the Google search above; both seem to focus on tech news, hence the spot checks. PaleAqua (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this argument has been had dozens of times on other Apple products, and is exactly the same as with Mac Mini (vs. Mac mini), iPod Mini (vs. iPod mini), iPad Mini (vs. iPad mini), et al. Regardless of the media always following the stylised versions per the marketing teams at companies, we here at an authoritative encyclopaedia DO NOT; per the previous discussions ad infinitum on those other article pages. So you can claim "searches say" but they have no relevance here. Jimthing (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes we followed the our style guidelines such as MOS:TM. However the MOS:TM doesn't exactly cover this case. The rule for following standard text formatting and capitalizations has this caveat "as long as this is a style already in widespread use". Likewise this isn't exactly CamelCaseo so those exceptions don't apply. The "trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter" section has rules for dealing with all lowercase, and a single lower case letter ( the iPod/eBay ) exception. The closest rule that I could find would be to use all caps per "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually", which mean that choices probably should be between "tvOS" and "TVOS". PaleAqua (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit also wanted to point out why I mentioned the scare quotes showing up in some of the non-tech news articles. To me it implies that they hadn't quite decided what the correct way to stylize the text of that format. It's possible that we will eventually need to adjust our own style guide similar to the eBay / iPod exception that slowly made it's way into various style guides including Wikipedia's. PaleAqua (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, use TVOS (rather then TvOS), per the guidelines. Just not tvOS which is certainly not per the WP guidelines. Can't tell you how many discussions Apple's "stylization" naming conventions have caused on WP over the years, with users not realising we do not follow marketing or media usage – here we go yet again, lol! Jimthing (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I typically hang out in move review so I am not surprised, it's not just Apple products though. PaleAqua (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that iOS is still "iOS" on Wikipedia, not "IOS" - same with iPods, iPhones, iPads... "tvOS" seems no less valid than "iOS" as far as I can tell. --68.203.42.76 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the difference between "tvOS" and "iOS" is, according to the official rules, the difference between one lower-case letter at the beginning of the name and more than one lower-case letter at the beginning of the name. (I don't see why 1 vs. > 1 should make a difference, but....). Guy Harris (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, it kinda falls outside of existing guidelines. There are a few that are close as I mentioned above... but none that really match. The best choices as I can figure from the guidelines are "tvOS" ( nothing covers, common usages so falls to local consensus ) and "TVOS" ( preferred if letters are pronounced individually from TMRULES ). I could also see a case for "TvOs" if the camel case rules were stretched a bit, but that also falls foul of the same rules that say that we should only change if in wide-spread use. My personal preference would tend to using "tvOS" as the other forms do not generally appear in other sources. Most of TMRULES has a general usage requirement or a widespread usage requirement. I'm not sure that the omission of stating that in the all caps rules is completely intentional especially given the second part of that bullet has if it is done universally by sources for the all lowercase case. PaleAqua (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - TVOS, done as per guideline recommendation, with the usual lead to show stylisation per other Apple pages. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Per what guideline recommendation is this discussion being claimed as  Done? General real-world usage leans unequivocally towards "tvOS". Honestly the only way to settle this is through some sort of democratic channel, there are guidelines supporting "tvOS" and others (and arguably fewer IMHO) supporting "TVOS", and really none for "TvOS" (sorry!). --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Apple TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080524061423/http://www.engadget.com:80/2008/01/16/itunes-and-apple-tv-rentals-and-purchases-what-you-can-and-can/4 to http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/16/itunes-and-apple-tv-rentals-and-purchases-what-you-can-and-can/4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714021314/http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/html/mplayer-docs@mplayerhq.hu/2010-02/msg00010.html to http://www.mailinglistarchive.com/html/mplayer-docs@mplayerhq.hu/2010-02/msg00010.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Apple TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130809061434/http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070403211328/http://www.twit.tv:80/92 to http://www.twit.tv/92
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516075732/http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2260565,00.asp to http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2260565,00.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013174937/http://blogs.consumerreports.org:80/electronics/2007/03/apple_tv_is_it_.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2007/03/apple_tv_is_it_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081231004900/http://blogs.zdnet.com:80/Ou/?p=962 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613185810/http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iMovie/8.0/en/10349.html to http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iMovie/8.0/en/10349.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130605184506/http://www.razorianfly.com/2013/01/30/new-apple-tv-model-a1469-discovered-in-fcc-filings-likely-to-arrive-with-updated-a5x-soc-processor/ to http://www.razorianfly.com/2013/01/30/new-apple-tv-model-a1469-discovered-in-fcc-filings-likely-to-arrive-with-updated-a5x-soc-processor/

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429011609/http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Editor-s-Blog/Sound+Image/all-about-the-numbers.html to http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Editor-s-Blog/Sound+Image/all-about-the-numbers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928124718/http://appletvsource.com/content/view/64/1/ to http://appletvsource.com/content/view/64/1

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202061205/http://redherring.com/Home/21384 to http://www.redherring.com/Home/21384

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130810235134/http://elan.plexapp.com:80/2013/06/04/introducing-plexconnect-an-appletv-client-which-thinks-different/ to http://elan.plexapp.com/2013/06/04/introducing-plexconnect-an-appletv-client-which-thinks-different
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718160220/http://www.zoom-in.com/blog/film-tv/todd-howard/why-apple-tv-needs-subscription-offering to http://www.zoom-in.com/blog/film-tv/todd-howard/why-apple-tv-needs-subscription-offering

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Apple TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228054815/http://support.apple.com:80/kb/HT2214 to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2214
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404205249/http://support.apple.com:80/kb/HT1755 to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1755
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204021901/http://www.apple.com/appletv/rentals.html to http://www.apple.com/appletv/rentals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329190808/http://www.apple.com/itunes/remote/ to http://www.apple.com/itunes/remote
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522190204/http://www.stmlabs.com:80/projects/crystalhd-for-appletv/ to http://www.stmlabs.com/projects/crystalhd-for-appletv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215223751/http://www.newsden.net:80/jailbreak-4-2-1-ios-apple-tv-2g-greenpois0n-rc6-6553 to http://www.newsden.net/jailbreak-4-2-1-ios-apple-tv-2g-greenpois0n-rc6-6553
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/14156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Obsolete" vs. "discontinued"

What is meant by "obsolete" in the technical specifications section, and what is the source for attaching that designation? Earlier versions still function to watch TV shows, listen to music, etc., don't they? In what sense are they obsolete? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

malicious link - listofappletvapps.com

G'Day,

Fortiguard says that listofappletvapps.com is a malicious site. Maybe this link should be removed.

203.213.0.203 (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Apple TV (stylized as  tv)"

What's the  meant to be? I suspect it's a character used by Apple's operating systems to look like an Apple, but not officially designated for that purpose in Unicode. Therefore it is inappropriate to use it on Wikipedia, which is not an Apple-only application, and it should be removed or replaced with an actual image. 82.28.153.207 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Talk:Apple_Watch#First_sentence.2C_what_does_.22.28stylized_as_.EF.A3.BFWATCH.29.22_mean.2C_why_is_there_a_.EF.A3.BF. ed g2s • talk 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Apple TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328170700/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/03/21appletv.html to http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/03/21appletv.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313133403/http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/02/overhauled-apple-tv-unveiled/ to http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/02/overhauled-apple-tv-unveiled
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2214
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2265
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1755
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iMovie%2F8.0%2Fen%2F10349.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3296
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/SP19
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/June_20_2007_Patch_%28aka_the_YouTube_Patch%29
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stmlabs.com/projects/crystalhd-for-appletv
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsden.net/jailbreak-4-2-1-ios-apple-tv-2g-greenpois0n-rc6-6553
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1498
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111034533/http://rufn.it/aTV/ to http://www.rufn.it/aTV

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apple TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302215237/http://www.putques.com/sync-your-apple-tv-with-itune/ to http://www.putques.com/sync-your-apple-tv-with-itune/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511200512/http://plugins.awkwardtv.org/ to http://plugins.awkwardtv.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

How-to section

I have removed the how-to section "Modifications and hacks" and placed it here for someone to move to a more appropriate location. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Modifications and hacks how to section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Modifications and hacks See also: iOS jailbreaking You can find the model number of your Apple TV by navigating inside your Apple TV to Settings, then General, and then About, and doing a web search for the model number shown there. For example, if you have model MC572LL/A, then you have a second generation Apple TV. It's important to determine the generation of your device before starting any modification process. Not all modifications work on all generations. Presently there is no way to jailbreak a third generation Apple TV. 1st generation During the days of the release of the first generation of Apple TV, various non-commercial and commercial hacks became available. These allowed users to remotely access the device, add support for other codecs, install a full-blown copy of Mac OS X Leopard and Mac OS X Tiger, access the hard drive via USB, use the device to browse the web, use non-Apple remote controls, and download metadata from the IMDb. In mid-2008, Fire Core released the aTV Flash software, which gives the Apple TV support for other media formats, a web browser, external USB hard drive support, and more. A free and open-source alternative, atvusb-creator, does much the same using a simple graphical interface on both Mac and Windows. [Please note that the Fire Core software support appears to be available and the majority of user hackable features including, the use of XBMC, is outdated and will not update properly]. As of June 2011, Apple does not prevent users from modifying their Apple TVs, but does warn that applying hacks may void the product's warranty. Installing updates for the Apple TV system software typically removes software hacks, but major Apple TV hacks are updated regularly. Most plugins for Front Row are minor and have not been updated to work with Apple TV running Apple TV Software 2.x. AwkwardTV reports 10 plugins out of 32 have been certified compatible with the "Take Two" update. Popular modifications include replacing/complementing Apple TV's Front Row interface with alternative media center software, including Plex, XBMC Media Center, and Boxee. Though Boxee installs a Netflix Watch Instantly plugin, the Apple TV does not have enough processing power to run the Silverlight framework that the Netflix plugin depends on. Users have also upgraded the first generation's internal hard drive. A hardware hack allows the first generation of Apple TV to output color through composite video. True 1080p playback and video output can be enabled on the first generation Apple TV by using the update software feature in the General menu, or by the more costly method of installing a Broadcom CrystalHD PCI-e card and version 10.0 (Dharma) and later of XBMC running on Linux instead of the native Mac OS X 10.4.x based operating system. This has been available since June 2010 and was originally created by Sam Nazarko. In March 2011, Nazarko released a GUI installer for both Linux and Windows platforms allowing quick installation of his minimal distribution. The distribution offers PVR support and AirPlay and still receives updates to this day. The AirPlay video and photo streaming feature was previously available on the first generation by installing the Remote HD plugin, Plex or XBMC Media Center. References 2nd generation The Apple TV (2nd generation) is the first to have an operating system based on a version of iOS. Developers have applied iOS jailbreaking so that software unapproved by Apple that may void the warranty may be installed on this model of Apple TV. This can be accomplished by downloading the Apple TV's firmware from Apple's servers, then using a custom firmware application like Seas0nPass or PwnageTool to create a custom firmware. Users then connect their Apple TV to iTunes, place the Apple TV in DFU mode, and restore the custom firmware to the Apple TV. This custom firmware provides SSH support to the device where users may use APT to install software to the device, or a GUI version similar to Cydia called NitoTV which includes access to software drivers to enable the built-in Bluetooth functions. There is a limited amount of Apple TV compatible software. On January 20, 2011, the XBMC team released the first official version of XBMC Media Center for this second generation device. A limited thin client release of Plex Media Center has also been released. 2nd generation Apple TV's are significantly more expensive in second-hand markets than the 3rd, due to this jailbreaking ability. In February 2011, Greenpois0n RC6 brought full untethered jailbreak support for second generation on iOS 4.2.1 with a simpler jailbreak method than Seas0nPass or PwnageTool. References 3rd generation/3rd Generation Rev-A The Apple TV (3rd generation) was released in March 2012. Four years since the device's release, the hacker community has failed to jailbreak the third generation device. According to FireCore LLC, there is a group of individuals attempting to discover a method to jailbreak the device. However, many leaders in the Apple TV hacker community have admitted defeat. The bootrom of Apple TV has been hardened to defend against the exploit used to jailbreak the second generation of Apple TV. A bootrom-level exploit is needed for a jailbreak because Apple TV disables its Micro-USB port until the device is fully booted. Plexconnect (giving Plex functionality) is available without a jailbreak for 2nd and 3rd generation. References 4th generation On March 23, 2016, The Pangu Team released a jailbreak tool for the 4th generation Apple TV running tvOS 9.0-9.0.1 that provides SSH access so that developers can port their jailbreak apps from iOS to tvOS. It doesn't provide a graphical interface such as Cydia and is unlikely to be used by the end user. In addition, the jailbreak requires a Mac with Xcode installed in order to install the jailbreak. References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Apple TV/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk · contribs) 08:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Good article review for Apple TV - see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Right, here we go:

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article prose is easy to understand. No spelling or grammar issues that I know of, however one portion of the specs section lacks a space when it needs one. This is easily fixable so I will pass it.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: (previously )

   Anything in particular that caused the Fail rating is bolded. Anything with a strike over the words (e.g. errpr) means that the issue it addresses has been resolved. As follows:

   The lead section lists, from my observations: the device and what it is, its capabilities, basic requirements to get the device working, how to control it, and a small selection of streaming services available. Good coverage, does not exceed or break requirements, so that's a pass (although I would recommend adding sales of the device as an additional fourth paragraph).

   In layout, the article accompanies most of the recommended elements in the Manual of Style.

   For words to watch, the article did not have any tone of bias that I noticed, and none of the words listed in the MoS are listed in the contents of the article with the exception of quotes. It has no contentious labels, unsupported attributions, or expressions of doubt that I know of, however terms linked to editorializing, such as "but", "however", "though" and "although" have been found. However these are small imperfections by my book, I give it a pass. On a side note, I would suggest fixes for the inclusion of "revealed" in the sales sections. What I cannot pass is the inclusion of relative time references that can easily go out of date ("recently", "current", "to date", "in the future", "now", "since"); because of that I have to give this category an immediate fail. One suggestion I would make is to replace "since the release of" with "after the release of". I also suggest the replacement of "which is often a goal" with a better suiting sentence.

   Writing about fiction is not relevant to this article so this subpage will not be counted in the review.

   Embedded lists: the use of correct prose is frequent, and inclusion of lists is minimal, and includes the "children" elements listed in the subpage. Tables are used only in the specs section and that is perfectly fine. The information is not uncomfortable to read and does not need to be split. Bulleted and numbered lists are used appropriately. This is a pass.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   I have pretty much no suspicion about the sources used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: (previously )

   The copyvio detector lists one source as 64.5% possible plagiarism, from igotoffer. I cannot determine whether or not the information is copied, or if it is, should be kept. Assistance would benefit, thanks. The copyvio detector, after a second skim, lists 51% confidence which is a good reduction. I'll pass it.

   Hi thanks for reviewing. I addressed nearly all of the issues above. I got the copyright down to 51% plagiarism per Earwig's Copyright detector. You can review all my changes to the Apple TV article that I made today and tell me what you think of them. Thank you JC7V-constructive zone 20:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking the time to review the article and adjust as needed. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

   I'll now continue:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article does not go off-topic on its coverage. Pass.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article is neutral as of the time that I am reviewing it. As I mentioned earlier, no tone of bias or anything similar. I pass it.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No labeled reverts after July 7th, and no notice of an edit war after the latest 200 edits. I give it a pass.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   In the infobox, the product logo, and a clean image of the device itself, are used. This is perfectly suited for the article. All other images below the infobox suit the topic well and do not seem to violate any copyrights.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After a noticeable amount of servicing on the article, it looks like it's good for promotion. This article passes!

Unreferenced claims

Despite the article being promoted to good article status, there are still a ton of unreferenced claims in the article and the accessibility section is completely unreferenced. I suggest demoting this from good article status until the problems are fixed. 344917661X (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will relook the article for the rest of 3 or so hours to improve on that. Thank you for pointing it out. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Actually, I will not be able to recheck the article tonight, as my schedule conflicts with such a possibility. If any assistance cannot be given to improve the article within the next 3 days (maybe less if I'm lucky), then feel free to file a reassessment. However in the meantime I do ask that you give me time to edit the article when I can. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my complaint. I'll probably file a reassessment in about a week if the problems aren't fixed. 344917661X (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my inconsistent schedule, but now I feel that I've made enough an improvement for the article to qualify. If there are any additional major errors or inconsistencies, do let me know please. Thanks. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Although the article has improved a lot, i've still found quite a lot of unreferenced claims scattered throughout the article. Make sure every claim is cited and if it isn't, find a source and use it as a citation and/or reference for claims that aren't backed up. 344917661X (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AppleTV-4th-gen.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AppleTV-4th-gen.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Development"

This section does not discuss development of the Apple TV product. It lists an incomplete smattering of historical products and false starts which happen to have some association with TV. None are even antecedent to the product being discussed.

The fourth paragraph is reports of debunked rumours. These might as well be categorised as fan fiction, though they were widely reported at the time. This historical tidbit might still have some place in the article, but certainly not under the heading of "Development."

At minimum, the section should be renamed to better reflect its content. However in my opinion none of it is relevant to the article and deletion should be considered. Simon Wright (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to deleting it. Guy Harris (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I just saw *Historical antecedents* used as a section title on Developer Transition Kit (2020) and decided that it was appropriate for this page. I still think the section isn't relevant and should be deleted, but at least now it's not mistitled. Simon Wright (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Apple did not discontinue the 64Gb version of Apple TV 5th Generation (4K).

Apple did not discontinue the 64Gb version of Apple TV 5th Generation (4K). The current article states Following the announcement of the new models, the 64 GB version of the 4th generation Apple TV was discontinued.[61].. The [61] reference points to https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-tv-4k-brings-home-the-magic-of-cinema-with-4k-and-hdr/ where it states Apple TV 4K starts at $179 (US) for 32GB or $199 (US) for 64GB.

Ambient Light sensor, 6h Gen

Should the sentence "It also has the ability to pair with an iPhone's ambient light sensor to optimize its color output" be here? This is more of a function of tvOS than the Apple TV. When updated updated to the tvOS 14.5 beta, the 5th generation (4K, 2017) model supports this as well. I have heard, but can't confirm, that this feature also works with 4th generation (HD).

SANSd20 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we split this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Andibrema (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

---

At 6 generations, I am wondering why we have not considered splitting this article. It's pretty large at this point and I feel like it would be less cluttered if each generation had their own page. The iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch get this treatment, so why not the Apple TV? The Apple TV has not been updated very consistently, but there will be a 7th generation pretty certainly given 8K coming. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't really think the current length warrants a split, and most of the changes to Apple TV have been incremental, much more so than any of the previously mentioned iDevices. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size says an article should be split when it reaches 100 kb and we are at 147 kb right now. And that number will only grow as time goes on. Subscribe to me (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the article size is about the prose size, and not page size. Xtools for Apple TV shows that this page has about 32kB (Prose: Characters). Tholme (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Most of this article is about Apple TV in general and there is little difference between all the different versions. The article is not very big (see above) and the generation section is very small. Tholme (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor support I think we should have a separate article for the 4K models (Apple TV 4K) and the HD models (Apple TV HD) but not each individual generation. 9ninety (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's either we give them all their own page or none. No in between. Subscribe to me (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no point giving incremental revisions their own page, but models such as the Apple TV 4K are major upgrades which are distinct enough for their own articles. Plus, my suggestion is based on the fact that the other models do not have distinguishable names, while these two major revisions do, so I think they need their own articles which also cover the incremental upgrades.

For example: see Apple Watch Series 2 which covers both the Series 1 and Series 2 Apple Watches. 9ninety (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Propose I think the article should be divided into pages for each generation of Apple TV and that we keep the original page, with just a brief summary of it. Currently the page is way too long, as seen in the infobox and Subheadings. This makes the article very confusing to read TapticInfo (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to your idea, I would suggest the major revisions having separate articles, and then the incremental upgrades to those revisions being covered on the same article. For example, Apple TV 4k was a major revision, but the 2nd generation 4K was a minor update, so we should cover both in 1 article. The 2nd Apple TV was also a major upgrade, but the third was incremental, so both on the same page. I think it makes more sense that way, but I also support your suggestion. 9ninety (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support It seems that the individual generations are notable on their own, so that makes it possible to split. It makes navigation easier too. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Split but not all Split them into two articles: First, second and third generation into one article. HD, first and second generation 4K into another. Considering how different those are. Then keep main article with general information. Havok (T/c/e) 19:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  The first generation having a completely different design and running a completely different OS on different architecture would definitely warrant it's own article. Between the 2nd and 3rd since they cap off at different versions and (for the third) its processor would warrant something. For the HD it probably won't run tvOS 15 which might be enough to make something, and also a distinct name. That leaves the 5th and 6th, which probably would just get different articles for consistency. Subscribe to me (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Prose size, according to XTools, is 31,573 characters which is classified as "Length alone does not justify division" per WP:SIZERULE. Since information about each specific Apple TV is rare anyway, and it's mainly general information, I feel like this would produce a bunch of stubs, unless there's someone willing to really work on it. The article is indeed a tiny bit unstructured though. Andibrema (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Odd word choice in intro

The introduction to the article states that the Apple TV gives users access to, among other things, "TV Everywhere-based cables and broadcastings, and sports league journalisms." Is this (cables, broadcastings, journalisms) typical industry jargon, or am I correct in thinking that this is a case of poor (possibly nonexistent) word choice? Illini407 ^talk 19:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and addressed this. I am nearly positive some of those words don't even exist. Illini407 ^talk 19:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Apple-tv-4k-2nd-gen.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Apple tv.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed text from "Background" section

The following text appeared in the "Background" section but refers to events well after the 2006 release of the first-ten Apple TV. I'm moving it here in case anyone wants to do anything with it. PRRfan (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting in 2009, Gene Munster, an investment banking analyst at Piper Sandler Companies, speculated that Apple would announce an HD television set to compete with TVs made by Sony, LG, Samsung, and others. According to Steve Jobs's 2011 biography, Jobs had found a breakthrough that would have made an Apple television commercially viable. However, the project was cancelled in 2014 and was never released.

At a March 2019 Apple special event, Apple announced the Apple TV+ streaming service, as well as Apple TV app that integrate movies from other Video on demand services. This was interpreted by media outlets as a departure from Apple's earlier strategy of looking for a killer application that would boost their set top box's market share. PRRfan (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

ITV Trademark Dispute

The article suggests that the Apple TV was not launched as iTV due to threats from ITV. The cited source from 2012 only mentions this issue being raised in 2010, well after the launch of the Apple TV and is instead referencing a then-rumoured smart TV from Apple. I can't find any contemporary sources that specifically mention a dispute with ITV being the reason for the name. iTV was specifically announced as an internal name and it seems unclear to me if it was ever intended to be named iTV for release. 2606:6D00:100:4F00:9508:8C9F:28D:7BE3 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)