9to5Mac⁠58%

iOS 27 beta 4 adds a useful Apple TV app feature, here’s how it works ⁠71%

By Chance Miller⁠25%

7/21/2026, 12:25:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 469 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (6,406 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.70% of the article peer group.

Apple released iOS 27 beta 4 today, and it comes with a useful new “Automatic Downloads” feature in the Apple TV app. 
Here’s how it works. 
Automatic downloads for Apple TV 
As spotted by Aaron Perris, iOS 27 beta 4 adds this new option in the “TV” section of the Settings app. 
When enabled, the feature will ensure that the next episodes of a show you’re watching in the Apple TV app are always downloaded and ready for you to watch. 
“The next 2 episodes of shows you start in Continue Watching will automatically download, then delete once you finish,” Apple explains. 
Here’s how to enable the new feature in iOS 27 beta 5: 
1. 
Open the Settings app 
2. 
Scroll down to “Apps” 
3. 
Find “TV” in the list of apps 
4. 
Toggle on the new “Automatic Downloads” feature 
It’s a clever new feature that should mean you’ll never find yourself somewhere without the ability to keep watching your favorite Apple TV show. 
The key, however, is that it works reliably — something I’ll be keeping an eye on as I continue testing iOS 27. 
Have you spotted anything else new in iOS 27 beta 4? 
Let us know down in the comments. 
My favorite iPhone accessories: 
Anker Nano USB-C wall charger with built-in screen 
AirPods Pro 3: Check the current sale price 
Charge all your Apple gear at the same time 
Bring wireless CarPlay to any car 
USB-C cable that shows how fast you’re charging 
Follow Chance: Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, and Mastodon. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.1%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.6%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Chance Miller: 3.6%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias13.0%This article: 23.4%Chance Miller: 3.9%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect23.4%This article: 11.9%Chance Miller: 0.9%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion11.9%This article: 10.8%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.8%Chance Miller: 3.7%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias17.8%This article: 8.2%Chance Miller: 1.4%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.9%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.8%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Chance Miller: 2.4%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.6%Chance Miller: 2.3%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority15.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%Chance Miller: 4.8%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.7%Chance Miller: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon6.7%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 2.5%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.1%Chance Miller: 1.4%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.1%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.8%Chance Miller: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 5.4%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.6%Chance Miller: 2.8%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chance Miller: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Chance Miller: 10.1%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.6%

269 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech227writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Perris • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageApple • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Apple

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words50% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Apple: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -22.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%Apple: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Apple: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.