Apple Begins Promoting 'Live Tune-In' Feature on New Apple TV Splash Screen

[Hookemfins]

CBS doesn't charge to watch live tv, the cable company does.

100% False. Local channels charge the TV Providers a rights fee to carry their channels. The same goes for all of the popular channels. They charge the providers on a per subscriber basis. ESPN gets $6/sub, just for ESPN alone. The other ESPN2 and the other also charge on a per subscriber basis although far less than ESPN. IF ESPN went with a stand alone package it would range from $25-35/per person from the numbers I am hearing.

It is the carriage fees charged by the individual channels that drive the prices up and if you go al la carte it'll be even higher.

 

[macintologist]

It's interesting to see broadcast networks finally confront how much viewers value their programming in dollar amounts. They've been making "good enough" programs that are attractive to advertisers, but not the sort of thing that people are going to subscribe with actual dollars. Who is really going to pay $10 a month / $120 a year to watch NCIS: Boise ?

Imagine if West Wing was made now. It would never be on NBC. It would be on a premium channel or AMC.
[doublepost=1460742323][/doublepost]

I want the Apple TV to have features like the xbox one, where at any point I can say "xbox, watch ESPN" and it flips my TV to that channel. It'd be nice to have the Apple TV plugged in and displayed as the centerpiece input for your TV and just have your apps and cable managed through that.

Make the Apple TV a HDMI hub and put everything into that so apple can manage it all

Edit: correction, it flips the cable box specifically for my setup to the right channel but can work on the TV directly.

You subscribe to cable TV?
[doublepost=1460742448][/doublepost]

Now if only more of the channels didn't require a cable subscription. But why should I pay CBS $6/mo to watch their shows which, from what I understand, have several commercial breaks throughout each streaming show? And that doesn't even include the NFL. I'm a cord cutter since 2010 and have never been able to get a CBS OTA signal at my home. I moved here a few years after the digital TV transition and apparently their towers no longer reach the 25 miles to my town of 115,000 after the switch. I even tried using that amplified Leaf antenna. So I can't even watch football, and the stupid streaming NFL apps black me out for being "in market" even though I live 125 miles away from the stadium. And I just refuse to buy cable, especially considering our local provider is likely the spawn of satan and Hitler.

I just wish these companies would launch pure streaming only services for cheaper. I don't need access to a backlog of tens of thousands of episodes. I just want to be able to tune in live sometimes, or maybe even just have access to shows that have aired in the past few weeks in case I missed it. I guess I'm in the minority?

Another solution is to change your hobbies and not watch any more TV or sports.

 

[Nunyabinez]

They don't give a crap about those star ratings. Star ratings don't generate revenue, and as long as cable/satellite pays more money than individuals they're not going to change... or care. CBS doesn't charge to watch live tv, the cable company does. CBS allows their broadcast to be under than cable umbrella, again cuz money. When they find a way to monetize cord cutters and cable subscribers in equal measure, you'll start to see a change. Until then, their attitude is "Take your free access through OTA antennas and shut up. If you want integrated, easy access get a cable sub."

I agree, except that I have a cable subscription and that does not give me an all access pass. If I want this app to watch material that I could get for free with an OTA antenna on my TV, and that I can watch from my paid subscription, I have to pay for a pass on top of the money that I paid to Comcast. That's why I gave a 1 star rating. They can completely bite me.

 

[69Mustang]

100% False. Local channels charge the TV Providers a rights fee to carry their channels. The same goes for all of the popular channels. They charge the providers on a per subscriber basis. ESPN gets $6/sub, just for ESPN alone. The other ESPN2 and the other also charge on a per subscriber basis although far less than ESPN. IF ESPN went with a stand alone package it would range from $25-35/per person from the numbers I am hearing.

It is the carriage fees charged by the individual channels that drive the prices up and if you go al la carte it'll be even higher.

Missing one word does change the way my quote was meant to read. My quote should have read, "CBS doesn't charge you to watch live tv, the cable company does." You, as in a response to:

Additionally they make money from the advertisements from Live TV and still want to charge you to watch live tv.

I'm fully aware of every point in your quote and have argued similar points on the subject (a la carte driving prices higher while forcing the elimination of a lot of content that doesn't generate high revenues).

edit: According to Nunyabinez, CBS does charge an extra fee for Live Access to channels. If that's the case... damn.

 

[Elbon]

I don't talk to my phone, and I don't want to talk to my TV, either. But I realize I'm in the minority.

 

[69Mustang]

I agree, except that I have a cable subscription and that does not give me an all access pass. If I want this app to watch material that I could get for free with an OTA antenna on my TV, and that I can watch from my paid subscription, I have to pay for a pass on top of the money that I paid to Comcast. That's why I gave a 1 star rating. They can completely bite me.

That is a world of hurt. Maybe competition would help. I'm fortunate my area is serviced by Comcast, Charter, and AT&T. Google Fiber is rumored to be in our area soon. My cable/internet bill has never been more than $90 because I will threaten to leave one for another of the services.

 

[mildocjr]

Couldn't care less. Not could. Could caring implies you care a bit, which I don't think is what you meant

What I want is for the Apple TV to actually be of some use in the UK - with more than just the BBC being on it. Until then - not interested.

Nice to see some changes are happening, though...

Thanks for the correction, it was a quick post, I wasn't grammar checking.

I can understand the want for some more programming from the UK, most of it is better than American programming anyways.

 

[addicted44]

I'm looking to purchase a TV device, but am struggling to understand how the Apple TV is any better. I currently use a Chromecast, but that is extremely limited especially since it's hard to stream things from my mac. Can someone explain to me how Apple TV makes watching TV any easier? Switching between a bunch of apps seems far more difficult than hitting the up and down buttons on my remote (or hitting the guide button and scanning the live shows). And when I'm searching for a specific show, the iPhone seems a much easier tool.

In a nutshell, how does the ATV improve the living room experience?

 

[Scarpad]

I guess this is a nice addition, but I probably will never use it. Watching live TV is almost as painful as listening to FM radio with all the ads.

It would be nice if Apple would fix all the bugs on TvOS. Between the bugs, lack of good apps(where is Amazon?), and the subpar apps available for the ATV4, I was thinking of going back to my ATV3.

I sold my ATV 4 and hooked up the 3 so that I could watch the Itunes content I've purchased, and the Dark theme actually looks miles better than the blinding white theme of the newest gen

 

[Juicy Box]

As an owner of Chromecast, although I never use it, I think I can answer this.

With an ATV, you can use apps directly from the device, without having to use an additional device such as cell phone or computer. In a word it is more convenient.

Example, if you want to use HBOGo, you go to the HBOGo app with you remote, click it, and it is ready to use.

If you need to pause you show, you just use your remote to pause. Unless things have changed with Chromecast, having to pause a show you need to have your phone around, unlock it, go to the app then pause.

That said, I have been disappointed by the ATV4 so far. I know a lot of people would disagree, but I still think the ATV3 is a better device. All the apps I use on the ATV4, are already on the ATV3, and the ATV3 versions are better IMO.

The bugs on the ATV4 are annoying, and I have to constantly close apps, and restart the device, something that I rarely ever did on the ATV3.

 

[69Mustang]

I'm looking to purchase a TV device, but am struggling to understand how the Apple TV is any better. I currently use a Chromecast, but that is extremely limited especially since it's hard to stream things from my mac. Can someone explain to me how Apple TV makes watching TV any easier? Switching between a bunch of apps seems far more difficult than hitting the up and down buttons on my remote (or hitting the guide button and scanning the live shows). And when I'm searching for a specific show, the iPhone seems a much easier tool.

In a nutshell, how does the ATV improve the living room experience?

If you're in the ecosystem, it makes for a more cohesive experience. It an entertainment component that ties into your phone/tablet/computer with multiple input options. If you're not all-in with Apple, there are alternatives that perform the same basic function. Roku, Fire TV, Chromecast, nVidia Shield.

 

[zorinlynx]

I sold my ATV 4 and hooked up the 3 so that I could watch the Itunes content I've purchased, and the Dark theme actually looks miles better than the blinding white theme of the newest gen

I still have my ATV3 (it's in another room serving a less used TV) and I'm really surprised that you did that. The ATV4 is WORLDS ahead the ATV3 in performance, flexibility and so on. Just the fact that it has the Plex app, which lets me watch any media I want off my server, makes it completely destroy the ATV3 in usability.

 

[slapppy]

These Sub programs are BS. Cost MORE just to have several favorites in conjunction to paying cable Basic Service and Internet access. It's dumb.

 

[Juicy Box]

I sold my ATV 4 and hooked up the 3 so that I could watch the Itunes content I've purchased, and the Dark theme actually looks miles better than the blinding white theme of the newest gen

I agree. I know there are things about the ATV4 that makes it appealing over the ATV3, but the things that they both do, the ATV3 is better by far.

I still have my ATV3 (it's in another room serving a less used TV) and I'm really surprised that you did that. The ATV4 is WORLDS ahead the ATV3 in performance, flexibility and so on. Just the fact that it has the Plex app, which lets me watch any media I want off my server, makes it completely destroy the ATV3 in usability.

I think it depends on what you do with your device. If there is a must have app available on the ATV4, but that is not currently on the ATV3, then the ATV4 is probably the right choice.

My family uses Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, HBOGo, Showtime, NBC, Fox, FX, USA, Weather, and the computer app. All these apps are on the ATV3, and they are better on the ATV3 imo.

We occasionally use bubble gum games on the ATV4, so other than that, the ATV3 is better. If Amazon ever comes to the ATV4, then I would probably keep the ATV4 on the main used TV, but as of now, I think I am going to switch back to the ATV3.

 

[pat500000]

I wonder if Apple will offer mercy killing option for Siri. Too much entertainment and less productive makes jack's brother crazy in a new sequel of shining 2.

 

[JoEw]

Not going to have a device connected to my TV that locks me into one walled garden. I want competition and I want direct access to the media outlets I value. So make it work on a general computer or I'll continue with antenna TV.

? the app store is direct access to content producers, and there is competition look what has happened with HBO, Showtime, Starz.. all offer non-cable subscriptions. Only a matter of time until network TV will have to compete.

I'm definintly not paying CBS money for the ability to watch their live tv channel on my ATV, I imagine a majority feels the same. The market will adjust eventually. Which is why Apple went ahead and launched the ATV app store without a TV package of their own. These companies will need to be dragged into the 21st century.

 

[bniu]

Here's the main issue I see. Apple TV is connected to your TV. To view these channels, you'd need a TV subscription, which would come with a big cable box anyways that is also connected to your TV, so where's the value to this????

Until Apple can do a separate streaming only content subscription, then these "TV" content apps have limited utility. Unless you're sharing accounts with friends, which is frowned upon, there's no utility to this

 

[JoEw]

Here's the main issue I see. Apple TV is connected to your TV. To view these channels, you'd need a TV subscription, which would come with a big cable box anyways that is also connected to your TV, so where's the value to this????

Until Apple can do a separate streaming only content subscription, then these "TV" content apps have limited utility. Unless you're sharing accounts with friends, which is frowned upon, there's no utility to this

A lot are going cable free, you'll only see more in the future. Starz just launched stand alone service because they realized they could cut out the cable companies.

Also have you used the UI on the new ATV? It's drop dead amazing, some of Apple's best work and knocks the competition out of the water.

 

[Hookemfins]

Missing one word does change the way my quote was meant to read. My quote should have read, "CBS doesn't charge you to watch live tv, the cable company does." You, as in a response to:

Even with the corrected post you are still mostly incorrect.

You are correct that watching local channels from an antenna is free.

The satellite/cable provider passes through the cost that the local channel CHARGES the provider. That is where you are incorrect.

If you owned a channel, local or national, you would charge ANYONE who wants to rebroadcast your signal a rights fee. It is called retransmission fees.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent

 

[Juicy Box]

Here's the main issue I see. Apple TV is connected to your TV. To view these channels, you'd need a TV subscription, which would come with a big cable box anyways that is also connected to your TV, so where's the value to this????

I have to totally disagree with you here.
Having an ATV is totally different than the cable companies' STBs. First, you are renting the boxes, For a few rooms, this could be $40 a month in rental fees. In my experience, the UI on this boxes are very slow and outdated. Some companies, such as Verizon Fios, do weekly maintenance to the STBs leaving some services like On Demand unavailable for hours.

I have a free rental from Comcast that sits in the shipping box it came in that has never been hooked up to any of my TVs. Why would I use this STB if the channels I watch are available on the ATV?

And about the size, the ATV is a fraction of the size of the STBs that I have used. Try this with most STBs.

 

[bpeeps]

If CBS wonders why their CBS app has 18,475 one-star ratings, this is one of those reasons. I don't think CBS understands that they're the most generic of broadcast tv. If pretty much anyone in the United States (cord-cutters included) want to watch CBS live tv, just tune into the channel. Additionally they make money from the advertisements from Live TV and still want to charge you to watch live tv.

I don't think the most watched broadcast channel in the US has to change much, it seems like they know what they're doing.

 

[Elbon]

Can someone explain to me how Apple TV makes watching TV any easier? Switching between a bunch of apps seems far more difficult than hitting the up and down buttons on my remote (or hitting the guide button and scanning the live shows)....In a nutshell, how does the ATV improve the living room experience?

It depends on your viewing habits. I hardly ever use a guide to browse live shows, and probably haven't watched live TV in a decade or so. I use a TiVO to record shows that are only delivered OTA, and I use the Apple TV for Netflix and anything I buy from iTunes (basically, the stuff I can't get on Netflix).

We also have a few games for the ATV. The game selection is still pretty limited, but it's growing.

 

[bpeeps]

Here's the main issue I see. Apple TV is connected to your TV. To view these channels, you'd need a TV subscription, which would come with a big cable box anyways that is also connected to your TV, so where's the value to this????

Until Apple can do a separate streaming only content subscription, then these "TV" content apps have limited utility. Unless you're sharing accounts with friends, which is frowned upon, there's no utility to this

I share a cable login with a few buddies as I don't have cable service. And thanks to the ATV, I can get the content without the cable box.

 

[cycomiko]

How about activating Siri in more countries?

yep... that would be a good start

 

[joeoreilly]

What I want is for the Apple TV to actually be of some use in the UK - with more than just the BBC being on it. Until then - not interested

Have you tried TVPlayer?

Disclaimer, I'm a developer at TVPlayer.