Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ABC News' New Apple TV Channel Showing Strong Live Video Usage

2

2010mini

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2013
4,698
4,806
thatisme said:
....Why would the standard over-the-air channels require a cable subscription? ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, etc...
Click to expand...

Ok this question gets asked a lot. Here's the basic answer:

Those networks transmit those signals themselves which is in part paid for by commercials. It costs a lot of $$$ to do that. They will NOT let anyone else retransmit their content without paying for it.

See: Aereo SCOTUS decision.

You want the free transmission? Get an antenna. The moment that content goes through a pipe of some sort, it's called retransmission.
 
N

ncollingridge

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
41
30
MacRumors said:
Apple has been adding new channels to the Apple TV at a fairly rapid pace, at least in the United States,
Click to expand...

Thanks for recognising that the situation in the US is not the situation elsewhere in the world. Here in the UK the AppleTV is, let's face it, little more use than an equivalently sized piece of solid plastic.

All the main TV channels here (that's all of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky channels which adds up to a lot of TV) not only have no end of people watching their material using catch-up internet viewing, but their apps are present on pretty much all the platforms available - apart from AppleTV, that is. How disgraceful is that on Apple's part? What makes it even worse is that they ALL have apps on iOS devices apart from AppleTV, so porting them across to AppleTV would be a trivial matter.

Come on Apple, step up to the plate. If you want to be a credible player then you need to deliver on the basics. And not just in the USA but other places as well, particularly where the job would be easy.
 
M

MarkNY

macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2010
228
103
thatisme said:
Why would the standard over-the-air channels require a cable subscription? ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, etc...
Click to expand...

Blame the retransmission consent fees of the 1992 Cable TV act. Completely rigged the game in favor of the network affiliates and is one big roadblock for Apple and others reaching deals with cable companies. They're holding things up, looking for money, even though they produce nothing.
 
N

Nyguy76

macrumors member
Oct 19, 2013
30
5
2010mini said:
Ok this question gets asked a lot. Here's the basic answer:

Those networks transmit those signals themselves which is in part paid for by commercials. It costs a lot of $$$ to do that. They will NOT let anyone else retransmit their content without paying for it.

See: Aereo SCOTUS decision.

You want the free transmission? Get an antenna. The moment that content goes through a pipe of some sort, it's called retransmission.
Click to expand...

I think most of it has to do with the retransmission fees that are paid to the networks. If the networks let anyone stream OTA channels, why should cable companies pay them billions a year to do the same thing.
 
thatisme

thatisme

macrumors 6502
Mar 23, 2010
485
106
United States
2010mini said:
Ok this question gets asked a lot. Here's the basic answer:

Those networks transmit those signals themselves which is in part paid for by commercials. It costs a lot of $$$ to do that. They will NOT let anyone else retransmit their content without paying for it.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem. The networks provide the content for free (with support from local commercials). There is nothing stopping them from providing that same feed to Apple, Roku or Google Chrome for free as well, and allowing those providers to retransmit on their dime, not the network's. Cable companies will not provide their lines, service, etc for free since they are carrying the cost of the infrastructure to get said signal to you. Apple, Roku or Google could charge you if they wanted (or not) and in this scenario, they are no different than Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, etc... They have just become an alternative delivery method from the cable companies. Commercial rates could be adjusted to cover the expenses in providing the digital signal to these new providers.

ATv already has the pipeline, using the cable line / DSL line you already pay for, so this is really an issue of whether or not your local station should be able to charge you for the same signal that is otherwise free based on how you, the end user, receive it.
 
IJ Reilly

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
This "infographic" does not contain much useful info, such the number of viewers who are watching the ABC channel, and without that, it's impossible to conclude that the viewership is "strong." Percentage breakdowns by themselves don't mean a whole lot.
 
K

Keerock

macrumors regular
Feb 9, 2005
225
72
Sadly, way bigger negotiations

Rogifan said:
When do we get ESPN Go without needing a cable/satellite subscription?
Click to expand...

Because ABC/ESPN does not own the full broadcast rights to the major sports leagues, only the rights to broadcast over the air and to designated Cable providers and other providers, these would have to be negotiated between each league and Apple and ABC/ESPN. And we all know how oh so simple that would be ;-)

I'm crossing fingers too!
 
zorinlynx

zorinlynx

macrumors G3
May 31, 2007
8,170
17,690
Florida, USA
It's ridiculous that we should have to pay a third party (the cable company) that has NOTHING to do with the delivery of the content (It's ABC/Apple ---> Your ISP ---> Apple TV). I can't believe the cable industry's hold is so strong that they basically get to charge a toll for a bridge they don't even maintain.

----------
Nyguy76 said:
I think most of it has to do with the retransmission fees that are paid to the networks. If the networks let anyone stream OTA channels, why should cable companies pay them billions a year to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the cable company I'd have to pay to get access to those Apple TV channels doesn't maintain any of the infrastructure required to deliver it.

Why should Comcast be paid a "toll" to cross a "bridge" that they don't even maintain? It's ludicrous.
 
ersatzplanet

ersatzplanet

macrumors regular
Jun 30, 2008
128
99
ChrisCW11 said:
I marvel at how the tweens these days are happy and content to watch TV on a small laptop or tablet screen, often not even at full screen but in a tiny window on their device. They will sit there and watch whole movies like that. I mean what a mediocre outlook for the future of video entertainment when the current generation of kids are growing up thinking its awesome to watch a movie in a 4" window. What are we going to have next, IMAX Micro because teens are too overwhelmed by massive visuals and want to squint in a movie theater because that is what they have become used to?

I know there are many scenarios where TV on a device makes sense, but I am talking about the idea that somehow people feel that their tablet or laptop is the "best" way to watch content.
Click to expand...

I used to own a Sinclair portable TV, one of the first ever made. It had a 1" CRT screen (basically the eyepiece monitor on bigger video cameras of the day). People always asked me how I could watch stuff on it. I told them to go home and cut a 1" hole in a piece of paper and look through it at their current TV across the room. You could hole the Sinclair at the typical book reading distance and get as big a screen as they watched all the time. Nowadays the TV screens are much better but even at that my laptop screen at a typical viewing distance is much bigger than the 50" TV across the room. I have to hold my iPhone about a foot from my eyes to do the same. My old eyes want to focus in that range so things are a lot clearer there for me.
 
dcorban

dcorban

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2007
914
30
Whoever made this graphic made a mathematical mistake. It states "50% more" usage, yet the graphic shows 100% more (double). The little icons should be .6 filled (3/5).
 
D

Djtrackie

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2012
49
0
I can't watch ABC live on the ATV app without having a cable subscription.

Whats the point then?
 
C

CashDude

macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2010
128
15
When the day comes that we can finally order cable channels a la carte, I'll sign up.
 
ricci

ricci

macrumors 6502
Aug 21, 2012
259
13
NYC
scbn said:
Fine. But the problem is, there aren't many interesting shows on ABC!
Click to expand...

Tell me about it!:rolleyes:

----------
Djtrackie said:
I can't watch ABC live on the ATV app without having a cable subscription.

Whats the point then?
Click to expand...

I have the little box and it's useless since I have cable????? Why watch Apple TV when it already on cable??? And disconnect the cable, guess what?? No Apple TV !!! I don't get it??? Somebody explain this concept to me??:confused:

----------
zorinlynx said:
It's ridiculous that we should have to pay a third party (the cable company) that has NOTHING to do with the delivery of the content (It's ABC/Apple ---> Your ISP ---> Apple TV). I can't believe the cable industry's hold is so strong that they basically get to charge a toll for a bridge they don't even maintain.

----------



Thing is, the cable company I'd have to pay to get access to those Apple TV channels doesn't maintain any of the infrastructure required to deliver it.

Why should Comcast be paid a "toll" to cross a "bridge" that they don't even maintain? It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...




Do I hear a movement brewing ????[COLOR="
 
bwillwall

bwillwall

Suspended
Dec 24, 2009
1,031
802
ChrisCW11 said:
I mean this is not a win so much for Apple TV as these content providers realizing that putting news and TV show streaming on a website is, obviously, not as enjoyable for viewers then watching it on a TV.

I marvel at how the tweens these days are happy and content to watch TV on a small laptop or tablet screen, often not even at full screen but in a tiny window on their device. They will sit there and watch whole movies like that. I mean what a mediocre outlook for the future of video entertainment when the current generation of kids are growing up thinking its awesome to watch a movie in a 4" window. What are we going to have next, IMAX Micro because teens are too overwhelmed by massive visuals and want to squint in a movie theater because that is what they have become used to?

I know there are many scenarios where TV on a device makes sense, but I am talking about the idea that somehow people feel that their tablet or laptop is the "best" way to watch content.

What is good about this is two things, people want to cut their cord and watch content on-demand on their "favorite" set-top box, AND, they still want to watch TV content on an actual TV. Rather than waste time or money investing in making websites to stream content, focus on offering quality content on these set top boxes and start the push to move away from ridiculous $100/mth cable subscription rates.
Click to expand...

With retina and 4K my iPad and Mac screens are actually much more detailed than a tv. The only thing nice about a tv is watching things as a family with good audio. I myself have no fear that theater size screens will "overwhelm" today's youth just because of YouTube. Computers aren't the preferred method of watching content because the screens are the biggest, but because getting the content you want on them is easier and involves less steps on them.
 
S

slimjimtx

macrumors member
Nov 17, 2009
83
0
unplugme71 said:
The thing that boggles my mind is that non-subscription based TV still requires a Cable Provider account.

I can understand things like HBO, SHO, etc. But why do local/free networks require it?
Click to expand...

It is strange, to be sure. Thankfully, PBS doesn't require a cable login. You do have to create a PBS login, however, but at least it's free. They just need to know what media market you're in so you can get local content (as well as national content...)
 
The Doctor11

The Doctor11

macrumors 603
Dec 15, 2013
5,974
1,406
New York
This is some interesting information. I would assume most people would watch from a mobile device but it makes sense most is coming from the apple tv.
 
rhett7660

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,224
4,304
Sunny, Southern California
TsMkLg068426 said:
You know the option of organizing and hiding apps does already exist, right? Not sure why people still can not figure out the use of it.
Click to expand...

hlfway2anywhere said:
I mean... you can move and delete the channels with like two button presses. Not exactly a challenge. That being said, I agree that in general, the UI needs to be changed.

AppleTV needs Spotlight. Search for the show to see which apps offer it and which episodes they have, and then choose. No more searching in every app to see if they have it.
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware and use it to hide, organize etc right now. However the solution that is currently presented to you is not the ideal and it is cumbersome. To me it is not a solution on how to do this, but rather a band aid fix on how to do this.

But yes, I am fully aware this functionality currently exists on the AppleTV platform. :D
 
jayducharme

jayducharme

macrumors 601
Jun 22, 2006
4,534
5,993
The thick of it
BrockC said:
These numbers should make the negotiations with service providers easier. :D
Click to expand...

I wonder if that was the real intent behind this publicity. Remember that ABC is owned by Disney (which has past ties to Apple through Steve Jobs). I wouldn't be surprised if this was simply a blurb to maintain interest in the ATV.
 
leon44

leon44

macrumors 6502
Jun 17, 2010
356
175
Newcastle upon Tyne, England
ncollingridge said:
Thanks for recognising that the situation in the US is not the situation elsewhere in the world. Here in the UK the AppleTV is, let's face it, little more use than an equivalently sized piece of solid plastic.

All the main TV channels here (that's all of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky channels which adds up to a lot of TV) not only have no end of people watching their material using catch-up internet viewing, but their apps are present on pretty much all the platforms available - apart from AppleTV, that is. How disgraceful is that on Apple's part? What makes it even worse is that they ALL have apps on iOS devices apart from AppleTV, so porting them across to AppleTV would be a trivial matter.

Come on Apple, step up to the plate. If you want to be a credible player then you need to deliver on the basics. And not just in the USA but other places as well, particularly where the job would be easy.
Click to expand...

I do get the feeling Apple thinks its can simply force its selection of American networks onto the rest of the world in the interest of simplicity.
If so it's a bit arrogant, every other country has their own unique structure and culture when it comes to television... maybe they just haven't got around to accommodating us yet. I look at 80% of the icons on my Apple TV with complete indifference, I don't know or care what these things are - I want the iPlayer and 4OD.
 
P

ProVideo

macrumors 6502
Jun 28, 2011
497
688
I cut cable a few years back so this has been great to see news reports on some of the current events that have been happening in Ukraine and Israel.

I could really do without the pop culture and celebrity garbage that seems to show up every hour or so. I've turned it off several times when an interview with Joan Rivers pushing her book came on or interviews with actors promoting new movies. Put all that stuff in a separate channel. This is one of the main reasons that I gave up on CNN and other "news" channels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom