Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have another Apple device

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by V__ on Monday January 16, 2023 @05:55PM (#34406614)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by jkaplowitz on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:11PM (#34406801)

I don't like this mandatory tie between the two Apple product lines any more than you do, but as an FYI nit on terminology:

> somehow thought any up-to-date iOS device would work. [...] Got the newest iPad?

iOS 12 was the last version of iOS where that name applied to iPad as well as iPhone. Starting with version 13, the version of the operating system for iPhone had been the only one called iOS, with the iPad OS called iPadOS.

So, yes, I suspect that any up to date iOS device does work, through the magic of terminology peculiarities, unless currently supported Apple Watches don't support all currently supported iPhones (I haven't checked if that is the case).

As for the operating system for Apple Watch, that has always been called watchOS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by munk-a on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:22PM (#34406927)

This feels like an Apple problem - their iOS variants being unified is a reasonable expectation from consumers and, additionally, the fact that they EoL devices so aggressively means that unless you're a cutting edge Apple follower a lot of their tech simply doesn't work together.

If Apple wants to sit there and say "Welp, buy the latest iPhone" they're free to do that - but the fact that there is user confusion is completely on them for making their products so inter-incompatible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by mihaaly on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:34PM (#34407049)

I belive everyone entering an Apple store should complete a test on their insight into Apple nomenclature and product history. Those who fail should f*ck off!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by radicalbyte on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:24PM (#34406954)

I've been an Apple customer for a decade and have had a number of iPads and this is the first time I've heard this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by symlinkk on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:14PM (#34406829)

Lmao how is this nuance related to the point he made at all?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by karamanolev on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:22PM (#34406939)

There's not much nuance to "iPad doesn't run on iOS, it runs on iPadOS". You need an iOS device to setup an iWatch. The nuance only applies to how that came to be, historically and strategically.

The above doesn't constitute support for Apple's policies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by kjeetgill on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:23PM (#34406942)

They're not making excuses for it— just clarifying why/how easy it can be to misunderstand the marketing material that led to that mistake.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by warning26 on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:43PM (#34407119)

This almost reads like a parody of Apple fanboy logic. Allow me to summarize your comment:

"Well, ACKCHTUALLY, on the iPad, it's called iPadOS. Checkmate, all your points are therefore invalid, Apple can do no wrong"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by isleyaardvark on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:51PM (#34407199)

They said it was a nitpick and your tone is really unnecessary. Please think about what kind of conversations you want to have here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by warning26 on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @12:15AM (#34409392)

I believe the original comment was edited; I don’t think it had that disclaimer at the time I wrote my comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by jkaplowitz on Friday January 20, 2023 @07:41AM (#34452310)

I do often edit my comments to improve wording, but I think in this case I had the disclaimer right in the first draft. I could be misremembering. I am certainly no fan of this product tie between Apple Watch and iPhone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by dustbitying on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:12PM (#34406808)

> There is absolutely no reason to impose such a limit.

regardless, I'm pretty sure that somewhere within Apple, they think it makes them more money this way, for the immediate term at least.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by edgyquant on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:46PM (#34407703)

I don’t think so. What it does is ensure they can keep compatible operating systems so that the experience is one they totally control for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by _rs on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:08PM (#34406766)

Wow, I would've hoped an iPad would work at least. Thanks for confirming.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by heisenzombie on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:53PM (#34407213)

Hm, some context here is that Apple Watch apps were — until recently — actually iPhone apps. The iPhone app was treated kind of like if you wanted to make a widget for your app, except it appeared on your wrist rather than your springboard. The whole app architecture really tightly coupled the products.

This has started to change with “set up for family” watches (which is mostly so you can give a kid a watch and no phone) but there are still lots of weird edge cases there.

I do personally wish they were standalone. If they were I would have gifted one to my father in law this Christmas. Instead he got a Garmin.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple won’t let you use an Apple TV unless you have anoth... by ShakataGaNai on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:00PM (#34407273)

Yea, that does suck. They are clear in their documentation when it says "Apple Watch Ultra, Apple Watch Series 8, and Apple Watch SE require an iPhone 8 or later with iOS 16 or later."

But it's buried in a giant page of fine print that you'd have to know to go looking for. Of course if you know to look for it, then you probably don't need the information.

Anyways, I agree that it sucks to have such a limit to JUST an iPhone. It would be nice if it worked with an iPad as well (which is really you're only other option). But the watch, watch app and others make implicit assumptions. For example your iPhone app, which is separate from the iPad app, also has the support for the watch built in (aka the watch specific apps). The iPad apps would currently not have this, because that isn't how it works. Could that change? Sure. But I would guess there are a lot of other implicit assumptions made that we're not aware of.

Lets be honest... Apple would be happy to sell you a watch AND an iPad. You'd be very likely to eventually get the Phone as well. But realistically that's not the direction most people go. They get a Phone first, then maybe they get the watch or iPad.

[ Parent | on HN ]