61–70 of 345 posts
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."
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.
Why would you buy your child an iphone if you don't have one?
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.
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.
Why would you buy your child an iphone if you don't have one?
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…
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.
You might as well be right, but I'm not sure it paints Apple in a better light.
Oh my god that is just an insane design choice
[flagged]
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.
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…
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 App…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 App…
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.