[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)