Donning my asbestos plate carrier (pitchforks-n-torches, ya know) suit for the inevitable Appleusian attack over daring do disparage Mother Apple. Heehee.. d;^)
lol... my sympathies.
What the hell are you talking about? I have the latest model ATV (2 in fact), and 100% of my library comes from local storage (either rips of DVD/BD that I've bought or a handful of iTunes purchases - which are the same or less cost than buying physical discs, otherwise I'd have bought the discs).
Did you not pay attention ability built into the newer AppleTV to stream content from your Apple Mac, iPhone, iPad, etc, where you have far more ability to store such movies locally that you could have stored on that older model? Or the ability of the new AppleTV to subscribe to services such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and many other services which have thousands of TV and Movies available at the click of the remote control? In so many ways it has more functions than that older model has. I can have movies on my Mac, my iPhone, my iPad, where I was watching them, and then decide I would prefer to watch them on my big screen and just send them there. Done.
So yes, may I have another.
As for your complaint about Apple's drives?
There was a legitimate reason Apple drives were more expensive than your PC floppy drives: they had an electric disk transport system and were built to Apple's standards, not to generic standards. Apple floppy drives had power eject, not a PC like button mechanical eject, so it would be extremely difficult for a user to accidentally eject a disk that still had open files on it. A PC user could always push the eject button and remove a disk in the middle of a save, format, or any other process, ruining a disk, files, Databases, etc., through carelessness. Apple's computers would always close all files before it would eject the disks. That meant far fewer corrupted files and/or disks. Apple carried the same philosophy over to their optical drives. I once read a study that showed over the life of an Apple drive, it more than paid for itself in the far fewer number of corrupted disks, fewer failed formats, and productivity lost in re-doing saves. Add that not many of them failed, so the cost of replacement was high, as the economies of scale could not kick in.
Apple users were and are willing to pay for that kind of attention to detail and long term savings that comes from using quality parts. So what if you can't just stick in just any off-the-shelf generic replacement that will fail to provide that kind of user experience. In the long run, it will cost more.
YOU would have preferred Apple be another big box computer maker made up of generic parts. Sorry. You did not understand the philosophy of how it all worked together as part of the overall user experience, and that's where most people who use Windows' and other makers' just-good-enough-to-get-by paradigm fail as well. Until they really experience the other superior-by-design-and-intent paradigm, they just don't get it. They think that "good enough" is good enough. Some of us prefer to have a superior experience and are willing to pay for it.
Apple has been using higher-standard hardware for such internals that is similar to all computer hardware for years, except they select the top of the line for everything they put in their equipment, just not the bottom of the barrel, cheapest end, lowest bid, components. For example, the hard drives will be from the certified top 98% quality out put of the supplier.
You’ve been a member here for 15 years which means you’re likely mid 30s at least
And u have a fiancée
You’ve never married yet?
Young folks are strange today