My Apple TV affecting Mac Book Pro?!

Bob,

After I wrote the post, I did disable IR on the Macbook via the mechanism you describe. But I don't agree with you that it's not a bug: although the MacBook might "accept input" from any remote, it should not act on these inputs unless the remote is paired with it. I never paired the Apple TV remote with my Mac, so why is the Mac letting this remote change my volume settings? What's to keep me from going out in public, find someone using their Macs with headphones, and pointing my remote at their machine and max their volume? Seems like an invitation for mischief/lawsuits.

Bob,

A bug can be in implementation or design. If an Apple device can be controlled by any remote - without the owner of the device first having to acknowledge/allow it, it's a design flaw/bug. You can call it a "feature" if you like, but I don't think you'd get much agreement from any real engineer. It's just stupid to ship a product - especially one made to be taken out in public - and have it default to be so insecure. Your suggestion that it's only the default and that it can be turned off "real easy" doesn't hold much water either. It assumes the person knew to turn it off. I'm a software developer (I'm just mentioning this to show that I'm not totally computer illiterate) who's owned his MBP for two years now - I didn't even know the thing had an IR receiver (it's not like there's a tell-tale LED that would let me know)! I asked my boss - who's owned Macs for 10 years and he didn't know that there was an IR receiver on his MBP either (much less how to turn it off: who would know to even look under "Security and Privacy" followed by clicking on the unlock button followed by clicking on "Advanced" to find the checkbox that turns off the IR receiver??)

As to how many people are going to take their remote to "disturb" users of Macbooks? Since the Mac TV remote comes in a nice, small, inconspicous package, I think I will head to the next Starbucks and see what havoc I can wreak :-) You'd be surprised what people do when they have time on their hands :-)

Anyway, I guess we just disagree. To me, it's an obvious bug/security risk. To you it's a feature.

Yes, there is a difference between a design feature and a bug ( and/or design flaw). I didn't say there wasn't. Since leaving a device open for others to manipulate without the consent of the owner doesn't seem like something a responsible engineer would do intentionally, I believe it's a bug or design flaw rather than a "feature". Unless you're friends with the Apple designers and know their intent, you have no way of knowing that leaving the IR open was by design (vs. bug). I don't need to "redefine" any terms in order to make this perfectly logical argument.

You say that my boss and I have proven that it's not a problem. Not at all! My boss and I have proven that most people probably don't even know of the existence of IR on the Macs and wouldn't know how to react when they find their volume control "mysteriously" going up/down.

You say "You indicate you don't know System Preferences..."

Nowhere in my post did I say that I don't know "System Preferences". I said that this particular system preference is difficult to find. Since my Mac gives no visual indication that there is an IR port active (such as an LED) and there is no OBVIOUS system preference that points it out, the average user won't know about it nor turn it off. Since the average user won't turn it off, it stays on. Since it stays on, it's easy for someone to have some fun with Mac users. It is not so hard to understand how this faulty arrangement may lead people who wouldn't appreciate being manipulated by someone's IR to, nonetheless, not do anything to protect themselves - because they don't know that there is a need to!