Sony is already a step ahead of apple. Sony already took out the same service called Playstation Vue, I did the trial version an its top notch. You get a whole bunch of cable channels and sports channels. The only problem I see is the price point, its kind of pricey. It even has a channel guide like cable, too bad I can't afford it now
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Live TV Service Not Coming Until 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're drama queens because, again, out there in the real world, people don't seem to feel your very disgrace because of Apple Music. All your statements are based on the forum inertia feedback and some internet blogging, and you know it. The same as most of this forum's content.
Haven't you thought about your absurdity when talking about maps' fiasco, whatever supposed ultra fiasco, SJ would or wouldn't, my pants' pocket wouldn't be able to manage that size... when sales numbers are released and the real world proves you wrong again and again and again and again? You're welcome.
Last edited:
The cable companies are in the hardware business. Those boxes are developed with them. But they choose the cheapest hardware they can find which makes their service suck.
Apple did try to work with cable companies to just produce the hardware and software. But Big Cable didn't want to do that as they make extra money renting those crappy boxes. I wish congress would force the same energy consumption standards on cable boxes that they do other electronics. That would force set top box makers to create more energy efficient ones.
Personally, if Verison Fios said tomorrow Fan TV set top box would be available through them but would cost extra, I would pay the extra!!!
Where is this? Call them and bargain. I pay $29.99 in Florida for 15Mb/sec Internet. TV would cost at least another $45-50.
I think one of Apple TV service features will be an interface that allows for easy discovery and recorded or on demand program viewing. I would pay more for access to the same content so long as Apple controls and curates UI and content.
Sorry folks, I don't get where you all get the entitlement from that Apple better deliver (or what?)
Postponed again. They had enough time. Don't know what they are doing etc..
All that based on rumors and Apple hasn't said a peep.
Relax, you lived all your lives without whatever Apple is planning and will still live and your Moms will still love you. It's all good.
Now, about the only thing I take from all of this is that the negotiations are tricky and complicated.
Between Apple wanting their cut, content providers not wanting to relinquish control and trying to get good pricing for all to entice subscribers, I do see little while of negotiations.
and what are you for assuming that we aren't out in the real world and hearing the same sentiment ? because I am, I know people who are going back to PAYING for Spotify rather than using Free Apple Music.
and are all the people dissatisfied with it on here not apart of the real world ? are we bots or something ?
so all these people who are expressing their dissatisfaction with the service are simply being influenced by forum inertia and not their own organic experience right ? Yet all these other people in the "real world" who like it are independently thinking individuals and the complete opposite correct ?
you make a whole boat load of assumptions and use words like "fiasco" and "disgrace" in reaction to someone not sharing the same opinion as yours and then actually have the nerve to call someone else the histrionic drama queen ? Oh the irony.
Yeah, I looked at Fan TV. The UI and recommendation engine look pretty slick. That said, as a Fios user, you may want to have a look at TiVo, which does work with your service. I'd say it's actually much more powerful than Fan TV because, while Fan TV integrates live TV plus only one video and one music streaming app (Crackle and Rhapsody), TiVo integrates live TV (which you can pause and rewind), plus recorded TV, plus streaming from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Yahoo Screen, AOL On, YouTube, MLB.tv, Pandora, Spotify, Plex, etc. I have a TiVo and use it with free over-the-air TV. It's really the best thing currently going in terms of tying together traditional and streaming TV all together in one box. TiVo has a big sale going on right now too...
That "majority" have probably not experienced the alternative.
Netflix has forever changed how we watch "tv". We will simply watch a whole series over a week or so and nothing else.
No adverts, watch what we want when we want, watch the whole 1-4 series as we catch up on new stuff and barely if watch live TV.
No interest in going back.
Say what you want. Quite everything criticized in this forum sells very well and growing or has a ton of users and growing. You can count with less than one hand's fingers the demonstrated real failures of Apple of the last decade and none of them use to be mentioned here.
Now you can continue whining about this probably growing and industry leading service if you want
No the game changer will be when someone gets it into their head the anyone in the world is their audience. It won't mater if you are in New Zealand, USA, Greenland, China, Tahiti or Antartica it is available all at the same time for you to watch when ever you like, not when ever to local "rights holder" deems it OK for you to see it a month or 12 later.
I happily pay for Netflix and I am about to dump SkyTV for being
a) CRAP (90% of show are just rubbish, you are better of watching the ad nauseum adverts)
b) Too expensive
c) repetitive (Same program screened at a different time slot(s) each day of the month) or its a repeat of the episode from 6 months back.
I wouldn't say relaying your requirements and needs to the developer/manufacturer actually puts you in that business. If I own a professional sports team and tell Nike to make me a really cheap shoe that simply does A,B,and C. That doesn't mean I'm in the sportswear business or am an expert on making or designing sneakers. I'm just a customer requesting a mediocre product to sell to my own customer. Manufacturers like Cisco could probably develop better boxes if cable providers actually demanded better boxes.
Most of us would like a better experience with our cable services but like I said before. These cable companies like most other companies in this technological age are too skeptical of changes that would affect their profit margin. Of course from a customer's standpoint we want what's best for us. Though the providers without any solid competition feel no pressure to invest money in that. Now that Apple is trying to step in to do it, they're trying everything to stop that.
Sports are easier than the rest. To get sports you need leagues and ESPN. Who owns ESPN? That would be ABC and ABC is owned by Disney. Who was the largest shareholder of Disneh stock...the Jobs family after Disney bought Pixar.
Sports leagues may be challenging, but for them it's simple math and Apple can make it work. Hell Apple could pay cash and buy the NFL if it wanted.
I will say what I want because well......I was already doing that.
Quite everything criticized here sells well ? Uh Okay. So because something sells well it's automatically a quality product or service ? or because you met somebody in the real world who shares your opinion that makes people on a forum less credible ? You really have fallacious logic spilling out left and right here.
" Oh well my friends in the "real world" dont agree with you! and it's popular so you're wrong! you drama queen you! "
Are we really using these type of elementary arguments ?
You seem like such a die hard Apple supporter so shouldn't you acknowledge that Steve Jobs constantly criticized the work of his company with much harsher language than this ? It's wrong for the customer who has to eventually pay for that same work to be able to share their dissatisfaction with it ? If we're drama queens then how you would classify his temperamental outbursts ?
and yes I (as well as others) will continue to give our honest opinion (or whine as you say) on products and services that ask us to eventually pay for them. While you ironically at the same time continue to whine about our opinions that nobody pays you or asks you to read.
Yes, and I personally enjoy some of the ones Netflix makes. But none of those shows have the same mass appeal. Although I'm unsure if anything will ever again.
Friends has 10 seasons, Seinfeld 9?, that is nearly 200 episodes each. I doubt Netflix will ever make something that long lasting...not that the US model for tv is ideal to begin with, but that is a different story.
Friends has 10 seasons, Seinfeld 9?, that is nearly 200 episodes each. I doubt Netflix will ever make something that long lasting...not that the US model for tv is ideal to begin with, but that is a different story.
DAAAAAAAMN!!!
I desperately wanted this instead of the SlingTV service, but I'm f*cking done waiting for this or the next AppleTV. The wait has just been too damn long.
I desperately wanted this instead of the SlingTV service, but I'm f*cking done waiting for this or the next AppleTV. The wait has just been too damn long.
To be accurate, Netflix pays for exclusive licenses for shows made independently. Netflix itself makes nothing. It's great there is another distributor of original programming, some of it excellent; but the producers shop the series around to different networks to see who bites. Several "Netflix original" shows were in fact developed by other networks, who later resold the rights to Netflix for whatever reason.
Perhaps you are not aware of it, but cable companies pay vastly different amounts for the rights to carry different channels. The fees you pay are to cover the most popular channels, and the crap channels (which cost very little to carry) are just thrown in to make it feel like you are getting a deal. Unless you just happen to be a rare diehard fan of The Sewing Channel, chances are your favorite channels are among the most popular ones, which are costing your provider the most in fees. You're not going to save as much as you think if you were to be offered the popular channels a la carte.
That is just so free market isn't it?
BTW if you offer exclusive hardware to run exclusive software. Then ergo, you are in the hardware business.
Example: Apple is in the hardware business. Microsoft, until recently, was really only in the software business.
Shall we play a game?Exactly.
$60 - Internet only
$70 - Internet + 100 cable channels
Or something like that...
The argument has always been "I'm paying for channels I don't watch" so you'd think by getting fewer channels or NO channels that your bill would be lower.
Well... the cable company is gonna get their money somehow. They will raise the price of internet until it matches what you used to pay for internet + TV
So you're kinda stuck.
The only winning move is not to play...
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!
I guess we have 2 different PS4's because that service sucked to me. I tried the trial which was stupidly only 7 days....now magically it's 30 days. Wonder why Sony? Couldn't get enough subs for that crap service? First, it's missing multiple local channels in my area. There are times often when suddenly the TV show would suddenly repeat what just happened 1 minute ago. I gets hiccups and without notice. I have a 150Mbps connection from Comcast. I have zero issues streaming anything else.
Then compared to "Live TV" Sony's service is about 50 seconds behind in time compared to my DirecTV, which is already 5 seconds behind for instant replay. The highest price tier is $69 and you certainly don't get your money's worth. Good that you're happy but that service is not worth that much money at all. I would go as far as saying it's not worth paying for at all. Sony has a lot of work to do. Couple that with using the Playstation controller to change channels and operate the video controls. Give me a break. Sony could've at least put out a dedicated remote. They won't be getting me to leave DirecTV.
Well it kinda is because content providers are free to work with and not work with whoever they want. Just like all other providers of goods and services can sell their products to whoever they want. A potato farm or beef supplier doesn't have to sell to Mcdonalds if they dont want to just like Studios and networks dont have to work with Apple. That's what a free market is. It goes both ways.
and No, offering something and manufacturing something is two different things. Just because Walmart sells clothing doesn't mean they're in the fashion design industry. Just because Time Warner hands you a Cable Box they got from Cisco doesn't mean they're a hardware developer.
