1. metllicamilitia's Avatar
    I recently switched to Google Fiber, that's another topic though as they upset me a little, however the Google Fiber network box offers 4 LAN gigabit ports. Awesome! I'm seeing only up to 500mbps download on wifi. That's my issue with Google. I had the wonderful idea of hard lining my Apple TV to a gigabit port. I was then only seeing 94mbps download and upload. I tried different cables, I even bought a CAT6 cable instead of using the CAT5-E I already had. No change. So I went to Apple's website and looked at the tech specs. This is for the new Apple TV by the way. It supports 802.11ac wifi, great, that's good for up to 866mbps download on wifi. Then I saw the Ethernet is only 10/100 supported. Meaning Apple capped the Ethernet at 100mbps rather than adding a 10/100/1000 Ethernet port to allow gigabit Ethernet. Seriously though, in a modern world driven by speed, why Apple, did you not give the new Apple TV gigabit Ethernet compatibility?
    01-01-2016 04:00 AM
  2. Dave Marsh's Avatar
    Good question, but how is it relevant? Apple never over-specs its hardware. What are you going to transfer to the Apple TV that requires gigabit speeds? Live streaming of 1080 HD movies works perfectly well over a 10mbps connection. I believe Apple is currently limiting third party apps to 200MB modules, or about 16 seconds of download time with no latency.

    Apple specs its hardware to meet its expected technical needs. 100mbps is certainly not today's standard, but neither is 1000mbps needed for its intended purpose.
    01-01-2016 06:04 AM
  3. metllicamilitia's Avatar
    It's not really necessary. However if you're going off near gigabit wireless, why do you not offer gigabit Ethernet? It doesn't add up. It's just more of a consistency thing for me.
    01-01-2016 02:06 PM
  4. robertk328's Avatar
    It's not really necessary. However if you're going off near gigabit wireless, why do you not offer gigabit Ethernet? It doesn't add up. It's just more of a consistency thing for me.
    Good question, but I would assume if the answer was easy, they would have gone that route. Cost, heat, efficiency, power, etc., may all have played a part. Also knowing that the majority would be wireless may have been a factor, considering the Airport Extreme uses gigabit ethernet (Express uses the slower speed).
    01-02-2016 01:14 PM
  5. metllicamilitia's Avatar
    Good question, but I would assume if the answer was easy, they would have gone that route. Cost, heat, efficiency, power, etc., may all have played a part. Also knowing that the majority would be wireless may have been a factor, considering the Airport Extreme uses gigabit ethernet (Express uses the slower speed).
    I get the wireless part, that's why they went 802.11ac for wireless. As for the Ethernet, it is easy, and inexpensive. There is literally no difference between ports other than the speed allowed through. Most any Ethernet cable you buy today is at least CAT5-E if not CAT6, both of which can handle gigabit transfer speeds. The only differences are the number of twists on the copper wires and inner sleeve between the pairs. Even the thunderbolt cable can handle 20Gbps, that requires buying a gigabit Ethernet to thunderbolt adapter, which Apple sells for $30. So just the gigabit port itself is quite cheap. Maybe it would have added $5-$10 overall to the cost of the Apple TV. So I really don't understand why Apple would give near gigabit wireless then limit your Ethernet.
    01-02-2016 04:56 PM
  6. boltz82's Avatar
    I agree in that the actual cost of providing the port would be incredibly cheap. I think that $5-$10 is extremely generous. In all likelihood it is probably a very small portion of that. I would hope that there are other aspects that Apple took into consideration that we are just unaware of.
    01-02-2016 10:31 PM
  7. metllicamilitia's Avatar
    I agree in that the actual cost of providing the port would be incredibly cheap. I think that $5-$10 is extremely generous. In all likelihood it is probably a very small portion of that. I would hope that there are other aspects that Apple took into consideration that we are just unaware of.
    I agree on the pricing, but being Apple, it would probably be a reason to up sell a little. I'm sure there are other aspects for the reasoning, I just don't understand what they could be.
    01-02-2016 11:45 PM
  8. boltz82's Avatar
    I agree, they will always sell at a premium.
    01-03-2016 12:51 AM
  9. Not Quite Right's Avatar
    So just the gigabit port itself is quite cheap. Maybe it would have added $5-$10 overall to the cost of the Apple TV.
    ... And they sell 10 million units that's $5-10 million bucks. Under that scenario Tim and Jony don't get new yachts this year ...
    01-03-2016 01:34 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else have OCD about their Apple devices.
    By RavenSword in forum General Apple News & Discussion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-13-2016, 02:54 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2016, 10:30 AM
  3. WTS: Apple Walnut Band (42mm)
    By Gary86 in forum Marketplace Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 06:50 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 04:33 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD