[HN Gopher] Apple won't let you use an Apple TV unless you have ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple won't let you use an Apple TV unless you have another Apple
device
Author : fortran77
Score : 178 points
Date : 2023-01-16 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| amelius wrote:
| Hmm, so they will use some sort of cookie to link the two
| devices?
| yamtaddle wrote:
| They'd both be logged into the same iCloud account, so why
| bother?
| amelius wrote:
| We want dumber TVs, not smarter ones.
| tarotuser wrote:
| How does this not violate the Sherman Antitrust act under illegal
| tying of services and goods?
|
| > (From Wikipedia) Success on a tying claim typically requires
| proof of four elements:
|
| (1) two separate products or services are involved; (AppleTV and
| other Apple phone/iPad, as demanded by the tied product in
| question)
|
| (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the
| additional purchase of the tied product; (Yes, and forced only
| after using said hardware for its claimed fitness of playing
| shows)
|
| (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the
| tying product; (QED)
|
| (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied
| product market is affected. (again, QED)
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
| NLPaep wrote:
| The market power is too weak
|
| Apple TV market share is below 3%?
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171132/global-connected...
| tarotuser wrote:
| I could see that. However the only flaw with that graph is
| that the scope is world-wide. I believe the Sherman Antitrust
| Act cares primarily about US operations.
| [deleted]
| HollowEyes wrote:
| I just wanted to get Apple music going, and had to jump through
| hoops. In the end I added an iCloud account to the macmini, and
| now whenever I go to use Apple music/access my apple account on
| another device, I have some ridiculous process of having to
| authenticate via the Mac mini. I also have a phone number
| registered, but it appears to count for nowt.
| terrorOf wrote:
| [dead]
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| To me this feels like a shortcut taken by the tvOS team more than
| a push for the user to own more Apple devices.
|
| What I'm guessing has happened is that that there's probably no
| standardized dialog in the tvOS SDK that is suited to a scrolling
| ToS/EULA screen and in the interest of pushing a release out the
| door faster an engineer was told to shove this message in an
| alert and call it a day.
|
| It's bad and should be fixed either way.
| [deleted]
| gchamonlive wrote:
| Is it possible to spin up an AWS EC2 Mac instance and sign in
| with it?
| timr wrote:
| It's bigger than just this -- I have Apple devices, and I still
| can't get the message to go away. This is a bug. In general,
| upgrading to the latest TV OS has been a serious step backwards
| in terms of usability.
|
| (I should note that clicking on the remote causes the annoying
| message to disappear, then repeat once, then goes away for...a
| day? Long enough to watch whatever I wanted to watch, anyway.)
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It's interesting how the responses basically split into two
| camps:
|
| - the "just buy an iPhone" and "you've brought it on you, what
| did you expect" camp
|
| - the "Apple fix this" camp
|
| At the point I'm reading this, the first camp represents the vast
| majority of the responses.
|
| That's interesting regarding Apple's ongoing lawsuits and
| regulaory pressure. For most people Apple domination and
| dictating the rules is basically a fact of life I guess.
|
| Will that change when Apple's forced to open its ecosystem and
| bring more complaints that were kept silent, or will they be
| booing as their champion is getting "bullied" into compliance ?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I have and iPhone, a Mac, and an Apple TV and I'm definitely in
| the "fix it" camp.
|
| There are other annoyances too - Apple really pushes you to add
| a payment method when creating a new iCloud account for some
| reason and when using an iPhone without a sim you get a
| "notification" badge on Settings.app that won't go away.
| There's also now countless "Set Up Later" prods in the first
| time boot up flow of iOS. No, I don't want to enable Siri. Not
| now, not later, not ever.
| MBCook wrote:
| So I was going to reply and suggest "what did you expect? Apple
| lists an iPhone or iPad as a requirement."
|
| You know what? They don't! I couldn't find it.
|
| If Apple wants to do this, fine. Mark it as a requirement. If
| they want anyone to be able to use it, they need to fix this.
|
| Seems like they've got a foot in each side right now.
| galoisscobi wrote:
| I'm fully in the apple ecosystem but agree that a person
| shouldn't be forced to buy another device to use the device at
| hand. The ecosystem should be a nice to have and not a
| necessity (although Apple Watch might be an exception, given
| how much it relies on the iPhone for its functionality).
|
| The fact that they were able to use their Apple TV before this
| TOS prompt seems like this blocking TOS prompt was a miss on
| Apple's part and they should fix it.
| counttheforks wrote:
| What about not being able to develop for an iphone without
| having to buy a macbook?
| galoisscobi wrote:
| Sure! It'll only help make app development more accessible.
| I also think I should be able to write code for my own iOS
| device, sign it myself and run it on my own device without
| paying them $99/year since I "purchased" the iOS device.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Until 2 months ago, they forced you to have an Apple Watch to
| be able to watch Fitness+ videos, even if you were already
| paying for the Apple One bundle that includes Fitness+.
|
| There was no technical reason for this requirement, as
| Fitness+ is just videos, and even if you had an Apple Watch,
| you did not need to be wearing it to watch the videos.
| galoisscobi wrote:
| What do you think caused them to open up Fitness+ videos to
| non-Apple watch owners?
| partiallypro wrote:
| > At the point I'm reading this, the first camp represents the
| vast majority of the responses.
|
| That's because despite it having gone from a niche company in
| the early 2000s to one of the biggest and most powerful in the
| entire world, it's still a cult in many aspects. Apple is
| blatantly anti-consumer on so many fronts but gets away with it
| all the time, and often times their own customers are the
| biggest bolsters to their behavior. People defend the 30% Apple
| tax, or the inability to install other OSes, or the screwing of
| Android users on SMS, etc...all the time. Things other
| companies simply don't get away with.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| I liked the variant "buy an iPad, accept the terms with it and
| then return the iPad".
| yamtaddle wrote:
| That and "accept from a device at an Apple store" were my two
| favorites.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Joeri wrote:
| To be fair, owning an apple tv and only an apple tv is not a
| scenario that I would expect, so I'm not surprised apple's
| engineers simply didn't conceive of this situation occurring.
| Occam's razor would lead me to assume this wasn't malice on
| apple's part.
| kazinator wrote:
| It should be obvious to any product manager or engineer that
| a product is going to have buyers who don't have anything
| else from the product line. That's a thing that happens.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| That's assuming Apple TV engineers are living in their bubble
| and no product/design people validate the screens showned to
| users (including wording and presentation). Then allowing a
| product to be updated and maintained in this conditions
| brings further questions on management and how they see their
| users.
|
| You might as well be right, but I'm not sure it paints Apple
| in a better light.
| valleyer wrote:
| I think I'd rather apply Hanlon's razor in this case.
|
| (I've worked at Apple and have witnessed this sort of myopia
| firsthand.)
| [deleted]
| chadlavi wrote:
| I don't think it's this person's fault or that they should have
| seen it coming but I am curious why someone with no other apple
| devices would buy what I consider to be a secondary apple
| accessory. I just assumed (and I guess apple did too?) that no
| one who doesn't already have an apple device would buy an Apple
| TV. If I didn't have apple computers and an iPhone I don't
| think I would see the benefit over a google tv device.
|
| Anyway, this is a QA fuckup I would guess. Someone should have
| asked the simple question, what if they don't have access to
| any such devices?
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Google TV is filled to the brim with ads.
| HollowEyes wrote:
| Glad we went the Roku route. It performs better than my
| Chromecast ultra too.
| goosedragons wrote:
| I wouldn't really call the Apple TV a secondary Apple
| accessory. The only thing another Apple device brings to the
| table is Airplay (and I guess slightly better keyboard input)
| hardly necessary when all the streaming services and games
| can be used with the remote or a controller. You can still
| buy iTunes videos on a Windows PC to watch on the Apple TV
| too. It's basically a fancy Roku or FireTV neither of which
| require another device.
| neximo64 wrote:
| I almost ignore any comments about Apple and prices or to do with
| spending money. They're a business of course they're going to do
| that... surprisingly it leaves very little opinion about Apple if
| you filter those out.
| maxutility wrote:
| Not mentioned in the OP: if your only Apple Device is an iPhone 7
| or earlier, you're out of luck, since iOS 16 requires iPhone 8 or
| newer.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| So, it's not "an Apple device", but an iPhone that is required?
| Bud wrote:
| [dead]
| Terretta wrote:
| iPod Touch works fine, for example. Also, it's not _actually_
| needed to set up the TV device.
| mklepaczewski wrote:
| Last time I checked a parent needed their own Apple device to set
| up app limits, downtime, accept/reject app installation requests
| on child's device. Thanks Apple. Now I have an option to give my
| kid unrestricted access to their device and to the whole
| Internet, or buy another IPhone just because my child uses Apple
| product.
| mik1998 wrote:
| Why would you buy your child an iphone if you don't have one?
| googlryas wrote:
| Because kids might bully you over not having a blue bubble
| but adults might not.
| tartrate wrote:
| Why would you buy your child an Android if you don't have
| one?
| mik1998 wrote:
| Price, probably. Children are often quick to break fragile
| things like modern phones. But honestly, in my experience
| every parent I know buys their kids the same phone they use
| in terms of the OS.
| [deleted]
| TheCleric wrote:
| Having tried both, the parental controls on the iPhone are
| much better.
| Ishmaeli wrote:
| I can't tell if this is sincere or a send-up, because it's
| literally Apple's apologetic for everything. Always blame the
| customer.
|
| "If your phone has bad reception, it's because you're holding
| it wrong. Why would you hold it like that?"
| mik1998 wrote:
| I don't own any Apple products and certainly wouldn't give
| my children any.
|
| Especially if the children are young enough that you need
| to use parental controls.
| bobbyi wrote:
| I would buy a child a toy car, not a Toyota, even if I drove
| a Camry
| jtbayly wrote:
| Or not let your child use an Apple device .
|
| That's actually your choice if it's your choice whether/which
| apps they can install.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Bit hard when its the dad thats non-existant in the kids life
| buying them a iphone @ 12. Restrict the usage of that and see
| how well your relationship with your kid holds up.
|
| Had this happen to us, my partners kids. Its a subtle attempt
| to destabilize and subvert her authority as parent figure
| even though old mate isn't even around, hasn't been for years
| and still is an abusive S*t. We got forced to buy a iphone in
| order to put parent restrictions on. Its shits as. I hate
| apple. Company does bulk crap that enables abusers and does
| piss all to prevent it or be like hey...maybe this is a
| ethically shit thing to implement. Maybe its gonna cause a
| whole host of people grief. Don't even get me started on
| apple air tags.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| IIRC you can sign in with an adult iCloud account then set all
| those same restrictions, protecting them behind an unlock code.
| The separate child iCloud accounts are handy if you _do_ have
| multiple devices (remote management of those permissions is
| nice, and app store content sharing is nice) but if you just
| have a single one for your kid, that 's an option. Adult iCloud
| account, enable restrictions with an unlock code. Unlock it
| when you need to manage the device or use it yourself.
|
| But, IDK, maybe they got rid of that feature. Definitely used
| to be able to do that.
| heresaPizza wrote:
| Actually there are many ways to set parental controls on device
| and lock them with a passcode or you could use third party
| solution that use the Screen Time API but are compatible with
| Android.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mecha_ghidorah wrote:
| Oh my god that is just an insane design choice
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I wouldn't be comfortable reaching that conclusion without
| knowing what market data they're using.
|
| As a non-Apple person, it certainly strikes me as obnoxious.
| But Apple has a better knack for making money than I do, so I'm
| not ready to call them morons.
| Scalene2 wrote:
| Insane and moronic can mean two very different things that
| can be incompatible with one another.
| mecha_ghidorah wrote:
| I mean... I am. It's hostile to the user, period. It doesn't
| matter if 99% of AppleTv owners have another device, it's
| still user hostile.
|
| I suppose it might not be "insane", just malicious, if the
| intent is to force some amount of the N% of people with just
| an AppleTv to buy another apple product. Then it wouldn't be
| insane or stupid, but it would be scummy as hell.
| maxbond wrote:
| You do not have to look at any market data to conclude that
| is unacceptably user hostile - I don't mean "acceptable" as
| in financially, I mean that it's unconscionable.
| [deleted]
| srott2 wrote:
| Similar to the Chromecast, I was trying to set one up.
|
| https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/2998456
|
| "Download the Google Home app on your Chromecast-supported
| Android device."
| slenk wrote:
| There is literally a button in the link you provided saying how
| to do it on iOS also...
| ikiris wrote:
| The chromecast didn't have an actual UI to manage.
| zamadatix wrote:
| You used to be able to set it up via any device though not
| just Android/iPhone which made sense as more than just phones
| can use it. At least it's not just Pixels or something.
| amiga-workbench wrote:
| You used to be able to set them up from the Chrome browser,
| back when Chromecast support was implemented via a browser
| extension and not baked in.
|
| They completely gutted Chromecast support in Chrome quite a
| while ago, you can't even adjust the playback volume from your
| computer any more.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| I wonder if they had to gut it due to the Sonos suit.
| jelly wrote:
| I think the current title is mistaken, the twitter user isn't
| claiming he can't use the Apple TV, he's just saying the message
| appears.
|
| I encountered the same message when iOS 16 had just released and
| wasn't available on my iPad yet. It wasn't a blocking message,
| pressing "OK" was enough to make it go away, and when iPadOS 16
| finally came out I was able to clear it.
|
| It's bad UX but the Apple TV can still be used as before.
| riffraff wrote:
| Apple won't let you use "find my device" on airpods unless you
| have an iPhone either, iirc.
|
| Its shitty behavior, but sadly unsurprising.
| slenk wrote:
| Can you use AirPods without an Apple device to begin with?
| ace2358 wrote:
| Yes they are standard Bluetooth devices and can pair
| normally. On Apple devices they get more features.
|
| I've used AirPods with my Sony PS Vita (made before AirPods)
| and my Nintendo switch (once they added Bluetooth headset
| support recently)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I'm able to locate airpods via icloud.com using a web browser.
| parker_mountain wrote:
| How did you enroll the airpods in find my network?
| jdminhbg wrote:
| "Find My" depends on a custom chip iPhones have.
| luckylion wrote:
| So you can only locate your airpods if they're with your
| iphone? Best make sure you lose them together then :)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No. You can locate your airpods if they're near _any_
| iPhone, iPad, or Mac. All you need is a web browser.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22711557/apple-lost-
| airpo...
| parker_mountain wrote:
| They don't provide an android client for enrolling them in the
| find my network.
| messe wrote:
| Assuming you're living in a country with decent consumer rights
| laws, I'd return the device to the seller. It's no longer fit for
| purpose.
| [deleted]
| alphabet9000 wrote:
| reminds me of the WWDC 2013 live stream which required [0] an
| Apple device to view. (want to watch a video about apples new
| devices? first you must own an apple device)
|
| [0]
| https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130610005564/en/App...
| awinter-py wrote:
| excited for them to release their VR headset so they can speedrun
| the 'buy a quest to get support on your other account' timeline
| acodesmith wrote:
| Log in to your Apple account in a browser and accepts the terms.
| Log out of the tv and log back in. Same thing happened to me. The
| original poster is mistaken.
| robbomacrae wrote:
| Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they are
| taking. The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces
| the smartphone, except they require an iPhone to use it. So
| instead of taking a short term hit and moving with the times they
| greedily hold on to their money maker and risk a competitor
| bringing out a standalone version and tanking the entire thing.
| Likewise the Apple TV is a great product and could dominate its
| category if it didn't require an iPhone.
| Bud wrote:
| [dead]
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Nothing's replacing the Smartphone unless it's got a camera in
| the same ballpark of quality and usability. Several use cases
| for a smartphone--including a couple major ones--don't really
| work with a watch, mostly for camera-related reasons. If it's
| not good as a camera, it's also not good as a scanner
| replacement, not good for remote check deposit, not good for
| things like the Measure app (or any other AR stuff), and so on.
|
| For a while I thought I'd go all-watch if they ever released a
| standalone watch, but paying more attention to how I use my
| phone, there's just no way. I'd just have to buy a separate
| camera, then I'd have two things to carry, plus it'd be much
| worse (since it's not like standalone cameras tend to have e.g.
| built-in text recognition). I think that's likely true for most
| people.
| Retric wrote:
| I don't think either can do it alone, but Watch + [ AR
| glasses or tablet + earbuds ] could more directly replace a
| smartphone.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Yeah, AR glasses are what will actually be the Next
| Smartphone, as far as rapidly attaining ubiquity. If they
| can fix the bulkiness and battery life issues, anyway. And
| sure, decent chance that'll involve tethering the glasses
| to some kind of watch where the actual brains and long-
| range radios live. Or to a smartphone or tablet that you
| can leave in a pocket or bag all the time (why wear a watch
| when the AR glasses could just paint a fake one on your
| wrist?)
| eternityforest wrote:
| But won't people feel uncomfortable being seen with AR
| glasses, at least for the next few years? They would have
| to be completely transparent, no impediment to eye
| contact, very small and fashionable, and so incredibly
| useful people would be willing to deal with any
| judgemental glares they got.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| But there's no technical reason a stand-alone watch couldn't
| be an option for those who actually want it.
| fsflover wrote:
| And it indeed exists: PineTime.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Sure, but
|
| > The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces
| the smartphone
|
| I simply don't think is true.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| This.
|
| I seldom, if ever, carry my iPhone outside my house. My Apple
| Watch with cellular is enough for internet connectivity when
| away from home.
|
| In my perfect world, I could provision my Apple Watch as a
| standalone device, and I could get a MacBook with an eSIM.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| I think macbook with eSIM could land once the OS has good
| controls over the network usage. Carriers aren't gonna let
| those things run wild
| [deleted]
| zikduruqe wrote:
| Yep. I am very, intimately familiar with the inner workings
| of carriers. But one can dream.
| mcculley wrote:
| Just bill me by bandwidth used. It is ridiculous that one
| cannot buy a MacBook Pro with a cell modem. I fight with
| tethering at least once a week.
| TillE wrote:
| > I seldom, if ever, carry my iPhone outside my house.
|
| This is such an extreme outlier behavior, nobody is designing
| products around it. Pretty much everyone who owns a
| smartphone carries it around everywhere, because why not.
| heresaPizza wrote:
| Being an iPhone + Watch + AirPods user I can say the exact
| opposite. The Watch is the perfect iPhone companion but it
| can't replace it. Its screen is so small it makes me want to
| complete interactions as quick as possible. I love leaving the
| iPhone at home when I go for a walk and still listening music
| and podcasts, but it's something that requires minimal
| interactions. Receiving notifications is great, but replying?
| terrible. Imho Apple should be a bit braver when designing the
| Watch UI. Put an always accessible now playing widget, let apps
| create more complex widget etc. (but still, I am thinking about
| glanceable informations or single tap actions).
|
| And I didn't mention the fact the iPhone has cameras and it's
| not physically attached to you.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| For people who want to use phone less (no social media etc,
| like what I'm doing now HNing at breakfast) Watch alone could
| replace the phone function (can call, take calls, message)
| and a couple other devices (map, audio player) completely.
| V__ wrote:
| I gifted an Apple Watch this Christmas. I checked their site
| and saw that an iPhone was needed, but somehow thought any up-
| to-date iOS device would work. Since you can set up the watch
| for a family member (who doesn't have an iPhone) it has to
| work, right? Got the newest iPad? F*k you, buy and iPhone. That
| was a disappointing gift, I can tell you that.
|
| There is absolutely no reason to impose such a limit. I don't
| understand it. However, I will never buy or recommend another
| Apple product ever again.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Having worked at Apple I feel like this is a mortal risk they
| are taking.
|
| Serious question: On this business topic, how does it matter
| that you were a software engineer (according to your HN bio) at
| Apple?
| nostromo wrote:
| They will cut the cord eventually.
|
| Remember, iPods required a Mac at first. Then a Mac or a PC.
| Then neither.
| xg15 wrote:
| Bonus points for Apple Support chiming in - to address an
| unrelated issue that another commenter casually mentioned.
|
| About the original problem? Not a single word.
|
| At least they are sending a clear message...
|
| https://twitter.com/AppleSupport/status/1615094275334619136
| Someone wrote:
| I wonder whether that prompt still is 100% correct, given that
| Apple recently put an Apple TV app on the Microsoft Store
| (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/apple-tv/9mw0zwqfh0m2)
| thought_alarm wrote:
| Just visit icloud.com or appleid.apple.com in the web browser of
| your choice. It's not rocket science.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| https://twitter.com/hugelgupf/status/1615048884568588288?s=2...
| Karsteski wrote:
| You're missing the point though. The device should be usable on
| its own. This is extremely anti-consumer, it doesn't matter if
| there's a simple solution
| denkmoon wrote:
| These devices are pointless "on their own". What would an
| Apple TV do without any external dependencies? Play the pre-
| loaded screen savers?
| wincy wrote:
| What? You can watch Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and do a ton of
| other things that absolutely don't require an iOS or macOS
| device to activate it.
| falcolas wrote:
| Based on my last two experiences, you can't on Roku - you
| can't watch Netflix, Hulu, or Disney+.
|
| Worse, you need a working payment method with Roku to use
| the device.
|
| Personally, I find that a bit more egregious. _EDIT_
| Nevermind this last bit. I didn 't see that the top level
| workaround... doesn't work around the issue.
| saurik wrote:
| You can also buy first-party stuff from iTunes on your
| AppleTV without any other device; maybe you need to have
| used a computer at some point in the past to make the
| Apple ID, but it certainly isn't an ongoing requirement
| to own anything except a TV (as AppleTV isn't actually a
| TV, despite the name ;P), and having an Apple ID is
| probably also required to download even free apps from
| the App Store.
| andrewmackrodt wrote:
| It's mentioned in the replies that there was no prompt to
| accept the new terms and conditions when using a browser.
| Interestingly, the word messages also excludes macOS,
| mentioning only iOS or iPadOS.
| [deleted]
| breezedream wrote:
| The thread indicates the OP tried this and was not prompted.
| Therefore this does not resolve the issue.
| [deleted]
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Do you have to fudge the user agent to iPhone or iPad?
| largepeepee wrote:
| He already did, he mentioned in the comments there was no
| option to approve it so he's stuck at that page.
| [deleted]
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| slenk wrote:
| I wonder if install iTunes on a Windows PC would work?
| jaimex2 wrote:
| We own you or you can get out.
| tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote:
| I saw the tweet and assumed it's just an annoying prompt but
| doesn't impede functionality. Does he say he can't use the Apple
| TV?
| fortran77 wrote:
| It will pop up periodically, even in the middle of a movie.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-16 23:00 UTC)