Talk:Apple TV (device)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Apple TV (device). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

"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 follow~~ed 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)

"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)

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)

More information Modifications and hacks how to section ...

Modifications and hacks how to section

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Close

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)

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^[1] 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

[1]
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Apple%20TV