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

[2010mini]

....Why would the standard over-the-air channels require a cable subscription? ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, etc...

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.

 

[ncollingridge]

Apple has been adding new channels to the Apple TV at a fairly rapid pace, at least in the United States,

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.

 

[cube]

The graphic is misleading. It looks like 100% more.

 

[MarkNY]

Why would the standard over-the-air channels require a cable subscription? ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, etc...

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.

 

[Nyguy76]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[ouimetnick]

CBS needs to get their Boston channel (WBZ) on Apple TV. Gotta watch the news and how else will I watch Judge Judy?

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

 

[Keerock]

Sadly, way bigger negotiations

When do we get ESPN Go without needing a cable/satellite subscription?

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]

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.

----------

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.

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]

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.

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]

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).

 

[Djtrackie]

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

Whats the point then?

 

[CashDude]

When the day comes that we can finally order cable channels a la carte, I'll sign up.

 

[ricci]

Fine. But the problem is, there aren't many interesting shows on ABC!

Tell me about it!

----------

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

Whats the point then?

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??

----------

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.

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

 

[bwillwall]

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.

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.

 

[slimjimtx]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[fcarreraf]

Awful infographic, really.

 

[TouchMint.com]

30 days of news sounds real boring.

 

[CrazyForApple]

I never used it yet, I might try it now

 

[jayducharme]

These numbers should make the negotiations with service providers easier.

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]

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.

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.

 

[ProVideo]

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.