1. Install a new launcher from play store (I found one called "Basic Launcher" that matches the aesthetics of the default one). This doesn't solve the problem though, because Google disabled changing the default launcher for some user hostile reason, until you delete the existing launcher.
2. Enable development mode by tapping on the build number in settings
3. Connect an adb shell to your device
4. Remove the built in launcher
5. Reboot, select basic launcher when prompted
I own a few android TV devices, have recommended them to people in the past, and won't be purchasing another. I think what happened here should be illegal and shame on whoever worked on this.
1. Install your new launcher through play store. (I used the Basic Launcher as well).
2. Settings -> Device Preferences -> About. Scroll to "Build" and click on it until it pops up that you are a developer (it will give you a countdown)
3. Settings -> Device Preferences -> Developer options (this was just unlocked in step 2) -> Network debugging (this will let you use adb)
4. Install adb (platform tools) on your computer.
5. adb connect <ip address of your shield>
6. adb shell pm disable-user --user 0 com.google.android.tvlauncher
7. adb shell reboot
Should find yourself in the launcher you installed
Note, I also stopped the google launcher (cleared data/reset defaults)/tested the new launcher in the middle. So if these steps don't seem to work, before doing step 5 try doing those and then retry.
I have a Google notification that I cannot dismiss and 3 buttons on my App menu that all take me to the Play Store that I cannot remove. I'm livid.
This should be illegal and I'm frankly worried about Google's future if this is the kind of shit that they need to pull to continue to profit. Some of the brightest sw eng's around yet they do this shit rather than innovate. Lazy
If they want me to be secure, package essential security updates into seperate downloads.
Not just the security updates, but also things like APIs that prevent some applications from being compatible. Still, I have to wonder how much of a tradeoff would be possible when all the code is managed together, and the security and feature updates would be interwoven in the same repo. There is only so much manpower available to keep maintaining every version of each update.
> Software Updates
> iOS now offers a choice between two software update versions in the Settings app. You can update to the latest version of iOS 15 as soon as it’s released for the latest features and most complete set of security updates. Or continue on iOS 14 and still get important security updates until you’re ready to upgrade to the next major version.
So you mean ads are increasing security ?
So many updates these days have nothing to do with security, just with "feautes" nobody asked for apart from random product manager who needs his paycheck.
nVidia should absolutely get ahead of this to preserve their own reputation.
Regardless of where they choose to lay blame, if Nvidia doesn't fix this I am done with their devices when it's time to replace them.
Sony's "smart" TVs all come with Android TV (now called Google TV). Their top of the line OLED TV Sony Z9J starts at $8,000 in 75" and costs $10,000 in 85".
(I mean, their reputation in some circless is AFAIK quite bad - 500+ MB drivers requiring registration on windows, lack of cooperation on Linux drivers, nerfing of some of their GPUs for shady reasons, attempts to buy ARM, etc.)
I am currently building a magic mirror like smart map. Basically, the goal is to have a big touchscreen with Google maps or Google earth running.
For touch screen support I bought a cheap USB infrared frame. I have tested it with the USB C port of my Android phone and it works well, but I have sadly not found any Android TV box which has an USB port.
Build your own with a Raspberry Pi. The new ones pack quite some heat in terms of performance.
The ads hadn’t rolled out yet on Shield when I moved over but for some reason I just assumed Apple wouldn’t be shilling ads at me constantly for services I don’t have, or trying to sell me content I already have access to.
More fool me. Fire TV is worse, but I’ve heard Roku is much the same.
The Smart TV ecosystem is rot all over.
Years ago, the App Store also used to not show ads.
Google TV launcher == Apple TV app on tvOS
You can remove the Google TV launcher but with it huge amounts of device functionality (including search). Same as for the TV app.
Literally zero difference other than the customary Apple free pass they always get.
I would also argue that some of these bad acts could be considered to be false / deceptive trade practices under the various state laws (in the U.S. at least). For example, some people would never have bought a FireTV cube for streaming video if Amazon had revealed that they would be adding advertisements to the consumer's video-viewing experience.
But: how much incentive is there for individuals to file a small claims suit against Amazon for a $79 device? Generally speaking you might get treble damages but not much more unless you've had actual damages.
And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) this is one thing we've lost by generally not allowing class actions.
David v. Goliath is not as effective as 15,000 Davids v. Goliath.
Not to even mention the mandatory arbitration imposed on consumers (which do sometimes carve out the ability to file in small claims court).
We have cultivated, or at least allowed, a very anti-consumer bias to take hold in U.S. law.
The fact that they use the monopoly power on the phone to force Manufacturers to use Android TV is insane to me. The fact that they then quickly made the experience extremely anti consumer is a playbook monopoly play.
That's the context - they can't do evil, by definition! (By circular definition, sure.)
Actually, mandatory arbitration can massively backfire, and the ad change seems like a compelling case.
Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers.
However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands.
The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts.
Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer.
Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen.
This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them.
And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared.
I don't understand why most people have a problem with this. It's the company that sold you the $79 product that cheated you. Be upset with them.
Personally, I don't care if I get $0 out of a class action lawsuit. I've already been cheated out of my money, so my main concern is punishing the company that ripped me off so they don't do it again.
Class action lawyers get a lot of hate, but those firms are fronting a ton of money and taking a ton of (monetary) risk by litigating on behalf of the class. They deserve a big reward when they win.
If you want to change the system, impose MASSIVE penalties on the companies that are cheating consumers. Make them pay 3-5x the going rate for the plaintiff's lawyers PLUS 100% refunds to all the customers that got ripped off.
Then the shenanigans will stop.
Retroactively adding ads to an ad-free device after the customer has purchased it, sometimes buying it specifically to avoid competing devices with ads, is inexcusable bullshit.
Ie, u less a service explicitly promotes am ad-free experience, there should be no expectations of such.
"Once screens and connectivity costs fall below a threshold, advertising is guaranteed to follow."
When they push a software update that makes the treadmill unusable without the subscription, now you're tied to not only paying for the service (at whatever price they decide that week), but you're also tied to the company itself continuing to exist and OFFER content.
A bunch of lawsuits have been filed, I'm sure it'll be reverted to 'the way it was' soon. (I honestly believe it was a largely clumsy move in trying to quickly tie a PIN code to the software to keep kids/unauthorized users from turning it on).
But it's a parallel here. My Google TV device might show ads on the TV network, but you pay for the device to not get ads on the home screen like the awful Fire Stick I have. (every time you hit 'play' to try to unpause a program, you are actually hitting 'play' on the terrible ad they gave you).
Not that I agree with anything Peloton has done in this situation, but you make it sound much worse than it already is.
I don't see how a single word of my comment makes it sound much worse than it is. I pointed out what they did as a result of CPSC, and indicated that they'll likely reverse course, which you confirmed.
I'm not super well-versed in how it works at the moment. I've got a Tread, but can't use it due to knee surgery, so I've been watching the CPSC uproar / PIN requirement from afar, and generally think it's pretty silly.
I bought my Shield as a premium device, not expecting the launcher to change substantially - much less to put ads on the screen.
A smooth, clean ad-free experience is certainly worth the extra price if you can afford it.
The problem is that Android TV users used to think the exact same thing. It's even said in the reviews explicitly by some people. I don't and I won't trust a corporation, be it Apple or Google, to not do something in a future update - if it works fine right now then unfortunately that has to be good enough.
Some make money by selling things so they have an incentive to keep happy customers. Some companies don’t.
Like, this isn't meant to be a post against Apple btw. Just that I don't see a point in saying "company X did a bad thing, that's why I buy company Y, they would never do this!" - they don't right now, that's what counts. But for the future? Who knows.
While people may not have had the foresight to know that Google would be adding advertisements to their tv box, the behavior itself isn't unexpected given that Google is an advertising company. For Apple the behavior is both unexpected and disincentivized by the brand they've built for themselves.
I could die tomorrow but living my life under that impression would be foolish.
I guess it's a choice of if you want to bend over at the checkout or at home when you have started using the product.
By cable connectors I'm assuming you are mostly referring to the lightning connector, which came before USB-C was an option. I actually still think it's a better connector than USB-C, but the advantages of adopting USB-C at this point heavily outweigh the merits of keeping it. Still, Apple doesn't shy away from adopting new standards that it thinks it's better. They famously ditched their own serial connector (ADB) for USB in the iMac.
I have no clue what you meany by keyboard layout or how Apple in any way locks someone into a specific keyboard layout.
> You always have to go all in to their ecosystem
Why do you have to go all in on their ecosystem again? There are plenty of people with airpods or an iPad without any other Apple device and are perfectly happy with just that. Apple puts a lot of effort into creating an attractive ecosystem because their business is in selling hardware.
> pay a 50% premium on everything just for the Apple logo.
... And for the software, the ecosystem, the hardware, and a lot of other factors. I find it extremely weird that you say this in the same sentence that you mention the ecosystem. Beyond that, it's not even true? What devices cost 50% more when compared against comparable options from other manufacturers?
> I guess it's a choice of if you want to bend over at the checkout or at home when you have started using the product.
You're making of choice of paying for higher quality hardware that isn't subsidized or lower quality hardware that is. The biggest slap in the face here is for people that bought premium Android TV devices like the Nvidia Shield and still have to put up with this bullshit from Google.
But it’s more likely if a company’s business model doesn’t involve ads vs does.
Past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance, but it’s the best we got.
I’ve always used my PS4 for streaming services but the bloody thing was so loud. I’ve replaced the PS4 with a PS5 but it doesn’t have the national broadcaster’s crappy app and we wanted to keep access to these channels.
I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the Apple TV. It surfaces shows across my streaming apps without pushing TV+ in your face. It integrates beautifully with the Apple ecosystem, I can ask Siri on any device to play $show on Disney+ in the living room and it just works.
I’ve heard how bad the old remote was but the new one is really nice. I’ve paired my dualshock 4 controller to it for Apple Arcade and it works great.
The Apple TV is a device that doesn’t get much attention but I think it’s really impressive.
I generally prefer more open ecosystems, but Apple has built a pretty strong reputation for not just being an ad company and for making solid products that are supported much longer than competitor devices.
For example Visio's hardware side could be reinvesting vast sums of revenue back into TV R&D. Or they could have invested in upstream component manufacturers. Maybe they spent a large amount on recruiting new staff. All those expenses are deducted before profit.
Meanwhile the ad division might have made no investments for the future and took the tax-inefficient choice to show a large profit instead.
I didn’t update the shield in quite some time as most new features are of no interest to me. And from the looks of it that won’t happen anytime soon. It’s worse enough that google did the same with the YouTube app …
Would’ve gone for an apple tv otherwise
Futzing with Kodi updates, patches, updates to the OS, drivers, etc is all way too much to be considered ’smooth’ for most.
It only gets used for local media + radio, twitch and youtube streams though - I don't know about other services.
Joking aside, there is not much futzing around to do if you just go with LibreElec, and you can even buy pre-installed boxes nowadays.
My setup is like GP's, ie I play the videos on the computer, but what bothers me personally is that I have to boot windows to get the high quality streaming.
I've looked specifically at Kodi maybe a year ago and it didn't seem to support this. I'm OK with tinkering if I know it's actually possible to get this working.
For my use, this is much less friction than any searching and waiting around for torrents or whatever to download.
There's also the discoverability factor. Not following current movies / shows, I don't necessarily know what shows exist. So browsing through random lists and then checking if they're available to download from enough people that it won't take a week is way too much work when all I want is to mindlessly watch something right now.
PS: I don't actually complain :-) I'm a recent convert and compared to Chromecast I find Apple TV a massive upgrade.
Without debating what "evil" really means in this context, in the early days of a company there are plenty of ways to grow without being actively user hostile. Once those avenues are thoroughly maxed out, any company that is basically only measured by growth (i.e. every public company) will have to slide more and more into things that only boost revenue to the detriment of users.
I mean, this change is so blatantly abusive and user hostile, and something that never would have been greenlit in, say, the 00s, just shows how far Google has decayed.
DuckDuckGo users are funding ddg’s growth and R&D which makes it a better product over time. Google essentially converted some minimal short term gains into an existential threat. Assuming they become widely known as the worse search engine it’s extremely difficult to regain users.
Facebook bought out several competitors, but Facebook.com for example has serious issues with younger demographics. At this point any platform they don’t buy risks killing the company.
In this case, the law or regulation is supposed to step in. The problem is that the law pretty much stopped advancing when it comes to the digital world, at least when it benefits the consumer.
It's just that culture/society/law change far slower than technology. Most US Senators are over 65, with associated world-views and educations more than half a century old. A quarter century ago, neither smart TVs, targeted ads, nor Google itself existed.
Children today are warned about Internet tracking tools, privacy management, they're aware of the creepy omnipresent big brother nature of tech, perhaps in 2080 Congress will be ready to address these issues.
Google doesn’t lack revenue streams, it just wants to maximise all of them ans make new ones. It’s the constant desire for growth and the mantra that ‘standing still is going baxkwards’ that I find repulsive.
I think there was a time when Apple was screwing up for a while and just making things shittier with new releases that Android actually was better. That time is now gone.
Edit: the iPhone keyboard really hates swearing though.
Lack of 3rd party keyboards was one of the things that kept me from using iPhones for a long time but these days I wonder why do anyone keep the original one?
Thanks for the tip! Which one do you use BTW?
I'm using SwiftKey - but I only type with it, I don't swipe. Also they are slowly introducing more bugs but it is still usable.
You then, which did you end up with?
- There were practically no ads, and especially no ads with easy traps such as “You have a virus, install this to remove it”.
- There were no OEM drivers, and thus no Askbar, the 404 pages were really 404s, and the Search on Google bar really went to Google.com. That was new for me, coming from Windows.
- If there were ads, on Mac, they were for higher-class products, not fast food.
People joke about the 20% to 100% higher cost of Apple products, but being away from the grandma/noobs ecosystem has no price. Corollary: Grandmas and noobs endure an obnoxious OS experience, because advertisers know that a lot of them will click on traps like “Error 404. Enter your credit card to view content” (or, today, “Want in on the Bitcoin experience?”).
My wife and I went from flagship Android phones (latest and greatest Samsung or Sonys) to mid-range iPhones (XR) over the last few years and it feels like a massive improvement.
I'm not going back anytime soon and next week two more of my kids are getting (refurbished) iPhone 8 to replace their aging Samsung Galaxy S7 and Huawei <something I can't remember>.
If I’m on the home screen and I want to search across apps (a core feature) I’m routed through the TV app, which will try to make me buy new services or pay fees to watch content I already have access to on Netflix.
It will also mix in banners for shows/movies I don’t have access to without paying additional fees, and doesn’t allow a way to disable this.
This is exactly the problem people are having with the new Google TV app.
Don’t want Google ads? Cool, uninstall the Google TV launcher and remove massive amounts of functionality you already paid for (including universal search) and crack on with a terrible experience.
Don’t want Apple ads? Cool, move the TV app to your junk folder and remove massive amounts of functionality you already paid for (including universal search) and crack on with a terrible experience.
Even Prime video has a free to me button.
The ATV is not a subsidised device, this is shameless gouging and Apple again get a pass on here that other companies are (rightly) dragged for just because they’re Apple.
Others in this thread have already spoken about getting ads for Peacock, Disney+ and Hulu even though they don’t have the services installed, let alone in the app bar.
Today I tried to continue watching a show I’ve been watching for a month and Apple wanted me to pay money just because it’s on Netflix. No mention whatsoever that it’s on Netflix or even a banner to read “content from other services may not appear in this app”.
Sure I can check Netflix separately, but that means that if I want to use the most popular streaming service in the world on this device reliably then I no longer have a universal search feature.
It’s crazy that the experience is this bad and no-one is willing to point it out.
Services are advertised regardless of what’s in the App Bar.
Shows are advertised on services that aren’t even installed, even if they’re on Netflix and Netflix is installed.
Movies that are on Netflix are shown as iTunes rentals for additional fees, with no message to the user that they can watch it on Netflix.
I asked if you know of a toggle to switch these of, I’ve been unable to find anything to suggest such an option exists either on my device or via Google.
I like a lot of what they make, but tvOS is just bad in it’s current state.
Why am I getting ads for services I don’t have, and why can’t I switch them off if I want to?
That’s the problem people are upset about is this is forced upon you with zero realistic alternatives. Apple puts it into the settings whereas you have to use adb to forcefully swap the launcher. That’s a pretty bog difference c
I also assumed it would be there, but unless I’m missing it, the option to disable those ads doesn’t exist.
After seeing screen after screen of one-star reviews, I'm not sure this one will just blow over. People are very, very unhappy with the update.
At home... libreelec. +importing ipvt playlists... +epg, which gets banned by the telco, and then reappears somewhere else. +subtitle services. +this and that plugin.
Remove some magnitudes, and then some more.
When instead it should not have been done at the first place.
That's why we need alternatives.
Show me ads in YouTube, show me ads in whatever other app, but not my home screen. There's a difference. The home screen is MINE, not Google's.
People are slowly realizing these commissions don't care about consumers, just making it seem they do.
Android is owned by Alphabet (or Google if you prefer) and you decided to buy a device that runs their OS with their services that are not open source. You probably didn't even pay for the OS. What makes you think it is yours?
And people wonder why Congress wants to break up FAANG
That we paid for it in the store?
Nowhere did it say "free OS included" so it is entirely reasonable to think that some of the price was for the included OS and software at the time which has now been substantially degraded.
Smart toasters that force you to watch ads before getting your toast in the morning?
Smart windows that display ads that block your view of your backyard?
Smart paints that display ads on your bedroom walls?
Smart shower-heads that play jingles as you wash yourself?
Smart brain implants that directly induce subconscious desire to buy certain products and services?
Is there some kind of limit at which we value the right to personal privacy and the right to peace-of-mind over the right to advertise?
And they say:
"Why not? We indicated in the TOS (on page 4) our ability to 'modify the program as needed to better support our customers or our services.'
"And before you say you never agreed to our TOS, we say you did when you plugged the SuperSmartestAlarm into a power outlet (as clearly indicated on page 22 of the aforementioned TOS, which can be conveniently viewed in a 6" x 2" frame with vertical and horizontal scrollbars)."
[Since this is too close to the truth to be obvious satire: no, this is not happening AFAIK (right now).]
It's from 2018, and no progress has been mad on this wonderous world for ad-subsidized fridges that I know of.
Still, it's clear people are thinking along these lines.
And I remain adamant that any appliance I own like this must not have wifi or bluetooth functionality. After my TV started showing ads when I switched inputs, I'm done giving these people an inch.
And the wealthy will get their peace of mind as they buy out of the system while continuing to preside over and profit from it. It's just going to become another thing that poor people have to live with; subservience to the corporate overlords.
I remember asking the CEO why would someone pay $5/month just to control their fan and he basically responded that the idea seems ludicrous and this point in time, but eventually people will catch on, and then he made an allusion to Microsoft Office and how that it's becoming a subscription product despite initially being one-off purchase 15 years ago.
If you're willing to do some technical work, there is fantastic open source tooling in this space. Then you'll have a setup that isn't affected by the business desires or financial problems of others. As a bonus, you get better latency over lan.
My only point was that even this server-based system is already selling without a subscription, and as you point out, the off-ramp to a system with no cloud dependency is pretty clear for those who want to avoid subscriptions (or dependencies in general).
Thanks for the pointer!
I was pointing out that even the parent comment's very example of a slow slide towards universal subscriptions that add no value didn't hold. It was framed as "I have inside knowledge of this nascent product category and its capture by useless subscriptions", while in reality this is already a market category that exists without any such issues.
This bizarre wild-eyed fearmongering about insane, lose-lose, somehow-inescapable business models is HN's version of QAnon.
Similarly, if ads partially fund a toaster, just....pay more for the toaster without ads? The expansion of ads to every product category doesn't warrant the assumption that it will _consume_ every product category, leaving no ad-free alternatives.
(a) introduce new products that require additional subscriptions (but eventually the company runs out of new products to introduce),
(b) raise subscription fees a tiny little bit every year (but there's a limit to how much any company can do that without angering customers too much), and
(c) break existing ad-free plans into new tiers of service, some or all of which have... ads.
None of the examples you gave (toasters, windows, paint, and shower-heads) are services. I used YouTube (a service) as an example, because we're not in a world where products are overrun with ads the way services are, but my point was that even the service market has started to offer alternatives to ads.
The idea that the market will bear every product getting service-ized but somehow not offer any ad-free versions is nonsensical, at least in the steady state.
Tangential, but you reminded me of it: it's truly fascinating how incredibly brain-damaging discussion of ads seem to be. Every single thread I've ever read on the topic is full of non sequiturs, nonsensical analogues, glaring logical inconsistencies, etc. The only other topic I can think of that makes people similarly insane is airlines (cf my "why should I pay taxes" uncle complaining about airlines no longer requiring other passengers to pay for transporting his suitcases).
As alternatives, you can buy commercial displays that are effectively TVs (with HDMI in), however they lag in specs and lack some features. You can also buy hospitality versions of TVs as 'dumb' TVs for a similar price, but these also tend to have lower specs. You can buy large format computer monitors (55" is about the highest I've seen) but they are substantially more expensive (roughly 3x more expensive) and typically use DisplayPort instead of HDMI.
I only learned about the options because I'm looking to replace my 2013 Plasma TV that has a power supply problem.
Adverts scorched into your toast.
I sort of want this.
But adverts on my breakfast? Dear god please no.
Who's "we"? The advertising companies? Then no.
Smart condom with smart lubricant - pay as you use.
Smart pants - ads on ass, smart farts.
Such a high % of the population is clinically addicted to the phone though I can't blame anyone who makes a product to cater to these addicts.
"They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products."
When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.
In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property?
This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.
(I know someone will say “just pirate it then!” but even putting moral obligations aside that’s still not realistic for the average viewer)
Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft.
Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft.
You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate.
I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds.
A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.
Even for rocket engines or whatever, it’s not clear if the patent system is still producing acceptable returns.
This is supporting my believe that expensive (durable) goods like TVs, cars, and appliances should have an external control hardware for their smarts that can be upgraded every few years. This would allow the good to last 10+ years without a crappy experience after the first 2 years.
Amazon got their remote right. Everything is an actual BUTTON and there aren't too many of them. Absolutely no complaints with that.
Add that the AppleTV has long had sound synchronization, now it has automatic color correction as well.
It's a very nice device. The remote was absolutely trash before -- good god I hate that remote -- but the new one looks significantly improved. And you can connect a controller to it and play a pretty wide variety of fairly decent games if you want, which is an experience that I imagine will improve over time.
Most of the "channel" apps are also very nice, the exception being Amazon's clunky Prime Video app. The Plex client is quite good too.
To be fair, I've not seen any other platform where Prime Video's interface isn't terrible, and that's including Fire-whatevers. Been that way for years. I guess it's working OK for them, since they don't seem inclined to fix it. In particular, they probably regard making it hard to tell whether something's free-with-Prime or pay-per-view until the moment you choose whether to play it, as a feature.
You'd also not have airplay and mirroring. That might be a bigger deal for some, but for me, it's a feature I basically never use.
Is there something I'm missing?
I guess safari supports porn
You can also use Plex to access a media server with whatever you want to put on it.
Does VLC on Apple TV support all VLC codecs?
If so, I highly doubt Apple would allow those on their platform but I've never actually checked. There are semi-sketchy IPTV clients that you can use to watch what seems to be unofficial streaming services, so perhaps those can also be used to watch what you want?
As for VLC, it's open source I encourage you to do your own research as I can't answer your codecs question with confidence.
To be fair my question is already answered, no porn support. You need a another device to stream from.