Still No Apple TV Audio or Video Streaming Options?

You can set up your iOS or android device as an iTunes remote that can control [forked-daapd] playback on the NAS and switch speaker playback (airport express, Apple tv, etc)

Use Apple's remote app or there are several android apps. You must manually pair the remote app with the forked-daapd server, though.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

StephenB wrote:

Apple TV requires "home sharing" - which is available in Apple's iTunes, but is not available in any linux server (neither forked-daap nor the older firefly). That's because Apple hasn't opened that particular feature up, so no one but Apple can implement it. So you can't access the NAS directly from your Apple TV. You can open the NAS iTunes library on a PC, and then use AirPlay from the PC to play it on the Apple TV. That's about the best you can do.

You are of course correct. The current solutions and supported devices would therefore be as follows -

1. If you use Firefly then you can share only music to iTunes running on a Mac, to iTunes running on Windows, or to a Roku SoundBridge. Firefly does not support any generation of Apple TV even for just music.
2. If you use forked-daapd which is available for OS 6 models, then you can share to iTunes running on a Mac, to iTunes running on Windows, music only to a Roku SoundBridge, and in theory music and video to an Apple TV 1 (the original)
3. If you run a virtual machine within the NAS and within the virtual machine run either Windows or OS X then you can run real iTunes software. Then you will be able to use iTunes Home Sharing which does support streaming video as well as music to Apple TV 2 and 3 models as well as to other Macs and Windows computers.

Currently as standard no ReadyNAS units can run virtual machines but apparently people have managed to get VirtualBox working. It would be legal to run Windows in a VM via Virtualbox but not legal to run Mac OS X. It is technically possible (but illegal) to run OS X in a VM unless it is hosted on a real Mac. Note: the QNAP has built support for hosting virtual machines.

See viewtopic.php?f=35&t=26468&p=296922#p296922 and http://www.readynas.com/?p=6111 and https://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopi ... 4&start=15

Apple TV requires "home sharing" - which is available in Apple's iTunes, but is not available in any linux server (neither forked-daap nor the older firefly). That's because Apple hasn't opened that particular feature up, so no one but Apple can implement it.

So you can't access the NAS directly from your Apple TV. You can open the NAS iTunes library on a PC, and then use AirPlay from the PC to play it on the Apple TV. That's about the best you can do.

schalliol wrote:
Last I checked there weren't any options to let an Apple TV play content from a ReadyNAS (any variation). Last thread I found on this was last year. Is this condition still the case? Thanks!

The older ReadyNAS families i.e. those running OS 4.1.x or 4.2.x come with and use the Firefly iTunes server software. This extremely old software does not support Apple TV clients and also only supports music files. However it is my understanding the the newer ReadyNAS models i.e. those running OS 6.x come with instead the forked-daapd software. This software does supposedly supports Apple TV as a client. This might therefore meet your requirements.

For what it's worth, this same issue applies to all NAS makes as pretty much all of them use Firefly. The QNAP does also have the option of a user supplied forked-daapd package.

Both Firefly and forked-daapd have been abandoned by their original developers however companies like NetGear have continued to make very small tweaks to the code to keep it just about working, for example a while ago Apple made a change to iTunes which broke compatibility with Firefly but (someone made) a patch to fix this.

Hmm, thinking further about this I think Apple have since moved the goalposts again. iTunes Sharing is not the same thing as HomeSharing. I will have to test to see if an Apple TV can still connect to an older iTunes (pre-HomeSharing). Obviously the latest Apple TV firmware now supports HomeSharing but I will have to see if it still also supports iTunes Sharing. If the latest Apple TV firmware is now HomeSharing only then it will no longer be able to connect to forked-daapd.

Ironically, even if the latest Apple TV firmware cannot connect to iTunes Sharing anymore a Mac or Windows client running iTunes can.

Ok. I have trouble differentiating Home sharing and Itunes server, for me they do exactly the same thing... Since I left my apple TV to my mother I couldn't test.

xeltros wrote:
I'm also wondering, does the Itunes server handle the videos ? if so you can use it to share video directly to the Apple TV if they are in Apple compatible format (MP4).

No, that needs home sharing. The Apple TV doesn't even "see" the iTunes server.

If you have a standard iTunes server with home sharing enabled on your network, then things get a bit better (but hard to explain). It's been a while since I tried this, so I won't go into details (I don't want to get them wrong). But some things will start working, because the standard iTunes can act as a proxy for the sever on the NAS.

I'm also wondering, does the Itunes server handle the videos ? if so you can use it to share video directly to the Apple TV if they are in Apple compatible format (MP4).

You are right for wifi but having the 3 problems (signal congestion, multiple electric installation on the same house, non drillable walls) at the same time is also pretty rare IMO but not impossible I grant you that.

For Microsoft, if they are not moving fast they won't be able to recover, I trust their ability to do so with their new CEO but that's merely a bet. They can mathematically recover, but still that means taking risks and that means doing it now. If they need 3 to 5 years to do something they are over until either Samsung and/or Apple make a stupid move, if they can pull something big out for next year, maybe... I think they plan it since they bought out part of Nokia.

I guess everyone is different, I just said what I've seen. I would be very presumptuous to say I've seen everything ;) I think Androids don't have flash anymore either (I think it was removed in 4.1 and is now impossible to install under 4.4, needs checking) and you have an "unread" mails category on iphone/ipad. But that doesn't really change the debate anyway and remarks for SD and player that need third party app or adapter are still valid.

You are right we are way off topic ;) I guess I (and my friends) had too much problems with android devices. We can continue by MP if you wish to, but although I am pretty flexible before making my mind and easily listen to people (hoping to learn something), although once it's made I'm quite stubborn and I'm afraid I'll need at least an outstanding Android device to change it. So I suggest to end it here. I hope we'll have the opportunity to speak constructively about another subject but I feel this is not a good one.

So, back to the topic. To my knowing : Airplay is a solution, apparently plex is also. You could also bypass the aTV completely and use DLNA on your TV if compatible. I can't see any other solution right now.
Maybe we could advise on a better setup to help you stream your films depending on your budget, available hardware/software and needs.

We are seriously off topic...

Some people have construction constraints that are difficult to get around. Moving your home theater setup to another room to get better signal is something that many people simply can't or won't do. WiFi extenders are not always a good option, especially if the spectrum is already congested with too many access points. Powerline also can be hit-or-miss on some circuits. Ethernet always works if you can run the cable (sometimes a big if).

On Apple, I find that basic things can be very frustrating, like no SD card support in the ipad, not being able to play an xvid avi, mkv, flac with the built in players, no flash support, not being able to sort your email by read/unread... I disagree with your tech/non-tech classification here - I know several non-techies who prefer android (and also techies who are fine with iphone). I'm glad there is serious competition, since both software platforms need improving.

We'll see what happens with Microsoft. I hope they recover in mobile, but I am not sure they can.

UDP was meant for streaming, I guess it can't do anything else on everything less than a perfect network... TCP is connection oriented so the checks/reemit take some bandwidth, that was to be expected.
I share your analysis about bandwidth, but I can't understand how they can get something into a room that has such a problematic signal. Either you patch it or you use another room, but the bare minimum is to have a signal higher than the internet bandwidth before putting a piece of network connected thing in a room IMO. There are many cheap options to do that out there. I would pick powerline with wifi extender on one end if the signal just doesn't get through (I have a wall like that at my mothers, 80% signal from one side of the door, 5% on the other side) otherwise simple wifi extenders to cover the distance.

Yes, Apple (on iphone) doesn't let you do anything fancy. That's why there are jailbreaks out there although IOS 7 reduced the need for it and IOS 8 will clearly do the same. So yes for techies that want peculiar stuff android is better.
On OS X that's quite open. You have a shell (a decent one with autocompletion), you have app store but you also have third party apps.

Well, I'm not saying that Nokia is enough per se. But that's enough to begin serious work and drive other vendors in. Microsoft is a big tech enterprise, it sells softwares (windows, office, various servers), services (one drive, office 365...), and hardware (Xbox, Surface, Nokia Phones...). Most enterprises have contracts with microsoft. How hard would it be for Microsoft to handle Phones like active directory computers ? Not hard, thus keeping costs down for enterprises (no training, no additional server...). Now make sure they have models tailored for enterprises with pre installed enterprise software, connecting to sharepoint, exchange and active directory would be a breeze. And for maintenance contract ? Just add an option to the actual one, no big paperwork. Make sure you hit a good price spot for big clients and here you go.
Phones always have been a problem to manage in enterprise, give the admin what he wants (less work) at a good price, he will do the work for you, don't doubt it. If Microsoft gets to this point for enterprises we will see Nokia fleets spawning everywhere, and when you are satisfied with your phone, you buy the same for your wife and kids... The problem is that Microsoft isn't there just yet. They still have work to do.
They still brand colorful Nokia phones, they designed them for young people IMO (at least some of them). They need to change that image and brand some professional models with all the stuff (communication encryption, multi user authentication, remote administration, better PC/phone interaction (like Apple will do with yosemite)...). Enterprises always have been Microsoft playground, they just have to push there, even losing money for a year or two, locking up their customers. Then they will have a solid basis to go after consumers, making packs with surface or PC for example, using Xbox integration (your phone as a controller or as a secondary gaming device (like vita for PS4), or even using the phone to boost console speed). They could also pay developers to get their apps on the windows store.
They have plenty of possible strategies, they just need to take some risks, make a move soon and to make sure it counts. IMO there is no place for subtlety anymore, they need a hammer but they have some room for now.