Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wow. I'm in the UK and its not too bad here, I'm just not sure how those US Apple TVs are managing to cope with the silly number of channels they have! Navigating must be a nightmare!

Nope. You just remove any "channels" you don't want.... It's pretty simple really. Just like removing Apps from your iOS device.
 
Seems Mostly Non-Content

What I see so far is mostly advertisements for programs via clips rather than actual episodes. Only a tiny subset of programs seems to have actual episodes.
 
So yeah Apple TV is getting a little too complex now. Clouded beyond belief. It's anything but simple in its execution. Icons all over the place, different cable packages required. Messy menu systems. Yuck. Hopefully this is part of a larger plan.
 
Argh!!

Get AMC & Showtime (maybe FX?) and we're cooking

It doesn't matter how many of these subscription-based network-apps Apple adds to the AppleTV. Nobody will be able to cut their existing cable and replace it with all this balogney. If you have to have a cable/Dish provider to begin with, this doesn't help.

What would it hurt if these apps allowed you to just open them up and they'd work instantly?! We as consumers will still have to watch the ads, just like if we were watching these networks traditionally on our HDTV's. They would just be adding multitude of mobile users to their existing audience without pissing all of them off.

:( :( :( :(
 
Whats the point if you have to have a cable subscription anyway? So you pay for cable and watch the channel on another box and just don't use the cable box?

It's for people who have cable in their main living room TV, but don't want to spend another $8-10 a month per box on extra cable boxes for the bedroom, kids bedroom, etc.

I used to have a second cable box. But not anymore since Apple TV started adding channels that stream live TV (with a cable subscription of course).
Even though the offerings aren't great (lots of Disney channels, ABC, a couple others) it was good enough for what I call "dumb TV watching" where I can just turn it on and not have to actually pick something out. The addition of History and A&E are very welcome additions, and it helps justify my not needing a second rented cable box.
 
What's the point of these apps? You need cable TV anyways, so why not watch it directly instead of going through Apple TV? Seems redundant.
 
Awesome news, Ancient Aliens marathon tonight! And in case I haven't lost enough brain cells, Duck Dynasty binge watching tomorrow!
 
Great, keep them coming!
I know it's now easier to hide unwanted apps, and I hid just about anything TV related in my living room Apple TV (mostly I just use it for hbo go, netflix, and streaming movies from my Mac).
But for the bedroom where this is actually useful since I don't have a cable box, I keep anything I can actually access. So many apps! Can I get a folder option, please!

----------

What's the point of these apps? You need cable TV anyways, so why not watch it directly instead of going through Apple TV? Seems redundant.

It's for people who may have a cable box in their main living room TV, but don't want to spend another $8-10 a month per box on rented cable boxes for the bedroom, kids bedroom, etc.
I used to rent a cable box for the bedroom and would rarely use it. But it was hard getting rid of it anyway, "just in case". This made it very easy to.
 
Wow. I'm in the UK and its not too bad here, I'm just not sure how those US Apple TVs are managing to cope with the silly number of channels they have! Navigating must be a nightmare!

It's pretty common for most people to have DirecTV or Verizon FiOS depending on where they live.
 
A little off topic rant against Comcast - I don't see myself getting rid of cable any time soon because of their pricing structure. Where I am at, Comcast holds a monopoly and it is pretty much their cable tv, their cable interenet or nothing at all.
And their pricing structure makes it very difficult to not have Cable TV bundled in with internet.
It's like $79+ taxes a month for internet only normal price. Or for like $10-20 more, 200 channels and hbo included, and all these other perks. It's almost like I might as well keep cable. No point in "cord cutting" when they keep having these packages and make it feel expensive to "only" have internet.

I could see myself cord cutting only if I lived in a place where Google is offering their fiber network. No games with the pricing there, since they aren't in the TV business.
 
Why do people accept the term "channel?" They are apps.

The ATV interface is just a bunch of app icons.

When I can go to the CNN "channel" and be immediately taken to live news (if you can call it news) then I will call it a channel. If I have to navigate to a live news button, pray that the link to my actual cable/sat subscription "allows" me to watch CNN (in all its ad splendor), then finally watch a live stream I will call it a channel. Until then it is just an app.

Michael

The term "channel" means a very narrow focus on a single source of content. Just because you think a channel means live tv doesn't mean calling them channels is incorrect.
 
"History" channel

:rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • History Channel graph.png
    History Channel graph.png
    52 KB · Views: 140
and how else are the shows supposed to be paid for?

a la carte is fine for people who watch one or two shows

Well, let's see:

1. Interrupting ads
2. Product placement ads
3. Subscriptions to channels
4. Pay-per-show
5. ???

Lots of options. No need to continue paying for the fact that in the late-1970s and early 1980s we only wanted to pay for one set of copper wires to be buried under every street in the US by furthering the "cable company" monopolies. They are an anachronism.

And, FYI, if you pay $100/month in cable (the average is right around there), at $2/ep that buys 50 hours of TV per month without a single advertisement, which is over an hour and a half each day. With ads, that buys 720 hours of TV per month (i.e., you can leave the TV on all day and night 24/7) and you still have $100 in your pocket (or $92 if you pay for Hulu Plus), because unlike cable/DirecTV Hulu et al do not have a double-fisted-money-grab where they put ads on your TV and charge you for the privilege (the case could be made that Hulu Plus does, but at less than 10% of the average cable TV bill, it's easily ignored). If you put a little thought into it, you can mix the two models and get everything you currently get from your $100 all-you-can-bear-to-watch subscription for much less, excepting live sports.

Again, the true exception to "you should just cut the cord and move on" is if you need to watch live sports on your own living room TV. There's no alternative there (although if you don't mind venturing out into the scary world there are a number of places you can get your live-sports fix).
 
Apple turned a hobby into a joke, another front end to OLD Big-Telco's monopolistic overpriced subscription model, which I guess fits nicely in with Apple's greedy fascist tendencies.

I guess Cable lobbyists are way more powerful then Apple's ability to innovate and create a product that might allow use to cut the cord.

Well now, exactly who's problem is that??? ;)
 
Just exactly, what do Duck Dynasty, Storage Wars, and Project Runway have to do with the History Channel, other than as a pathetic and sad example of what is termed "entertainment" in the 21st century?
 
Except the only content providers you can sign into are DirecTV, Optimum, and Verizon FiOS. Pathetic.

No Comcast?? Ugh. I think they are a provider on the iOS app though.
It's such a mess on everyones part.
For HBO Go, Comcast is a content provider on an Apple TV. But Comcast isn't a content provider on a Roku. Doesn't seem to make much sense.
 
Just exactly, what do Duck Dynasty, Storage Wars, and Project Runway have to do with the History Channel, other than as a pathetic and sad example of what is termed "entertainment" in the 21st century?

TLC is the best example for the worst entertainment this decade. And when I say worst I mean it is bad, but it is also really terrible guilty pleasures for some people. My goodness... and they used to be called The Learning Channel..
 
I just set up my AppleTV 3 to access the A&E, History, etc. Unfortunately, there are no pictures associated with the icons for the various shows. Also, there are no labels until I hover over the blank squares representing where the icons should be. For example, for The History Channel's Pawn Stars, I have to locate the cursor on each icon to find the show. The icon is blank and the label for PawnStars does not show up until I place the cursor not the blank icon.

How do I get the icons and labels to show up without hovering?

Cheers,

Don Barar

Try restarting the Apple TV, that seems to be the answer for most weird issues like this.

Other than that there it's supposed to show up automatically so there isn't much else you can do.
 
Why don't you use the iOS Remote app on an iPhone or iPad (unless you don't have an iPhone or iPad)?


That is what I mean. You have to use a separate device to have a good remote. It should come with a good one stock.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.