3 ms·

I'd really love it if I could access the Apple TV while it's not being used. It's very powerful. It could run a home VPN, or accelerated image/video encoding (o

I'd really love it if I could access the Apple TV while it's not being used. It's very powerful. It could run a home VPN, or accelerated image/video encoding (of which it can do VERY FAST). The reality is that it's a very powerful box that largely just sits there.

azalemeth 6y ago
Exactly. I have an iPad Pro that is compatible with Checkrain. Being able to SSH into it and do stuff is a useful godsend. I've no idea why Apple won't let users actually use their devices -- and I write this on a rooted Android phone.
- minikites 6y ago
  >I've no idea why Apple won't let users actually use their devices Why would Apple let you do it yourself when they can juice their services revenue by making you pay for the same functionality?
  - FredPret 6y ago
    How many Apple users are chomping at the bit to SSH into their TV or tablet? I’d rather them spend the time streamlining the 1-2% of use-cases that make up 99% of actual device use.
    - azalemeth 6y ago
      Good point. But, given frankly how many developers I know with Apple products, I suspect it may well be higher than you think. The main thing I like is flexibility: I have a home-built Kodi PVR with a TV tuner on a raspberry pi 4 in a neat little box. It works brilliantly, and also doubles as an adblocking nameserver, always-on reverse tunnel so I can access files stored at home remotely despite many layers of NAT, etc. There's no reason Apple's products couldn't do this.
      - FredPret 6y ago
        I agree, that’s a great use-case. But the main thing with Apple is that they manage the scope for life’s little bugs to creep into their UX by aggressively minimizing the number of things they attempt to do. Think about how many times you unlock your phone, open the keyboard, open an app, etc, versus how many times you need to do something power-user-ish like running an adblocking nameserver, or any kind of server. They should spend money and brain-time optimizing the first things, first. The latter is still important and cool but shouldn’t be doing it at all if they can’t slot it neatly into their smooth user experience. As an investor I also don’t want them risking their super valuable brand and spending money developing fringe applications. You can buy a $50 RPi for that!
minikites 6y ago
Putting that much power in a TV box doesn't make any sense to me. If it was for Apple Arcade, then they need to ship an actual controller by default. Apple is half-assing it with more and more products because people keep buying them anyway.
rodgerd 6y ago
For me it's the simple irritation that if I have an AppleTV autoplaying my sleepytime music to my room, or the radio to the kitchen in the morning, and someone else starts using it to watch TV, it replaces all those audio streams. C'mon, you can't tell me it is unable to do more than one thing at a time.

azalemeth 6y ago

Exactly. I have an iPad Pro that is compatible with Checkrain. Being able to SSH into it and do stuff is a useful godsend. I've no idea why Apple won't let users actually use their devices -- and I write this on a rooted Android phone.

minikites 6y ago
>I've no idea why Apple won't let users actually use their devices Why would Apple let you do it yourself when they can juice their services revenue by making you pay for the same functionality?
- FredPret 6y ago
  How many Apple users are chomping at the bit to SSH into their TV or tablet? I’d rather them spend the time streamlining the 1-2% of use-cases that make up 99% of actual device use.
  - azalemeth 6y ago
    Good point. But, given frankly how many developers I know with Apple products, I suspect it may well be higher than you think. The main thing I like is flexibility: I have a home-built Kodi PVR with a TV tuner on a raspberry pi 4 in a neat little box. It works brilliantly, and also doubles as an adblocking nameserver, always-on reverse tunnel so I can access files stored at home remotely despite many layers of NAT, etc. There's no reason Apple's products couldn't do this.
    - FredPret 6y ago
      I agree, that’s a great use-case. But the main thing with Apple is that they manage the scope for life’s little bugs to creep into their UX by aggressively minimizing the number of things they attempt to do. Think about how many times you unlock your phone, open the keyboard, open an app, etc, versus how many times you need to do something power-user-ish like running an adblocking nameserver, or any kind of server. They should spend money and brain-time optimizing the first things, first. The latter is still important and cool but shouldn’t be doing it at all if they can’t slot it neatly into their smooth user experience. As an investor I also don’t want them risking their super valuable brand and spending money developing fringe applications. You can buy a $50 RPi for that!

minikites 6y ago

Putting that much power in a TV box doesn't make any sense to me. If it was for Apple Arcade, then they need to ship an actual controller by default. Apple is half-assing it with more and more products because people keep buying them anyway.

rodgerd 6y ago

For me it's the simple irritation that if I have an AppleTV autoplaying my sleepytime music to my room, or the radio to the kitchen in the morning, and someone else starts using it to watch TV, it replaces all those audio streams. C'mon, you can't tell me it is unable to do more than one thing at a time.