They already have that. Its called iTunes.
----------
Why? LOL.
----------
And? What makes you entitled to NBC?
No one is entitled to NBC, but i believe it was a grave mistake allowing a cable company to own a broadcast network.
They already have that. Its called iTunes.
----------
Why? LOL.
----------
And? What makes you entitled to NBC?
Except in your model each channel would end up costing $10+ each and 1/2 the channels you like would cease to exist.
A lot of "4K" screens have HORRIBLE quality. Resolution doesn't change the fact that many of these are terrible panels and even a low end 720P plasma (if anyone still makes them) will crush them in every meaningful ways. Actually, there is no real LCD/LED which has plasma quality so we are stuck with horrible quality until OLED prices go down and the longevity of those panels increase (especially for the blue color). Seemingly takes longer than it did for LCDs prices to go down.
The reason they stopped doing plasma is not quality, but production costs for manufacturers (their profit margins were too low). Anyone who has seen a top end plasma next to a top end LCD will pick the plasma EVERY TIME.
Seriously couldn't care less if it's 4K or not.
So, really-- this isn't any different than cable or directTV, except you won't be able to record (NO HDD on AppleTV unit as of now).
No contracts, no weird dudes coming into your house. No channel numbers. No 1980s style "DVR" technology that's really just a digital VCR. No crap channels like HGTV.
1. Some offerings (ESPN for example) are not available through an antenna.
2. Antennas do not work well everywhere. I am within 10 miles of SF and cannot get two major networks with even a quality powered antenna.
3. Presumably this would include past episodes / on demand. I never watch live tv anymore - I watch when it's convenient. You can set up a dvr with an antenna, but then you're either paying a high up front cost or a monthly fee (TiVo) anyway.
I'm not saying this is by any means a perfect plan, but stop with the "it's the same as an antenna" stuff. It's not.
Do you have a link to this!!!!!!? This is outstanding and I hope the WSJ is right on this! Which means the possibility of new hardware is coming also!
i doubt it, at least with this hardware. Only the NHL channel it's able to stream
close to 60fps but it shutter a lot.
The beginning of the death of cable Tv as we know it.
Great news!
Greedy pricks. If you are going to charge the same as cable companies for delivering less content than don't bother. There is no point to cut the cable from one greedy Telco just to get hooked into a walled garden of a greedier tech company. By the time Apple is done nickle and diming you for all their monthly charges (Radio, iTunes Match, TV subscriptions, etc), then you are just going to end up paying Apple the same amount as any other Big Telco company, you've traded one devil for another.
There is one innovation Apple has to work towards above all else, value.
You can bring your Directv anywhere in North America... It's a satellite. People with RVs do precisely this almost every weekend.
What you can't being anywhere with an Apple TV is Internet access.
OLED is as dead as plasma. Production costs too high also. It's up to LCD to scale and improve slowly as it has been doing over the years. Besides, plasma is only good in controlled lighting environments. LCD handles glare much better.
WSJ reporting that the service will stream 4K to upcoming new Apple TV!!! H.265 decoding in hardware.
This may be big competition for Netflix.
We'll finally be able to watch something in 4K other than the same GoPro videos over and over.
I'm about sick of every rumor involving the apple tv involves "this fall", meanwhile "this fall" never comes.
No Whitney, no sale, Apple
This has been happening for the last several years. People want to be able to watch TV when they want to, pay for the channels that are only watched etc ( discussed plenty here ) etc etc.
Apple didn't start this, but have contributed via AppleTV already, and maybe will continue to do so through this new service ( depending on what is it ). Though cable companies are beginning to wake up and adapt.
You are correct at the very high-end. Average LED/LCD panels are much better than average plasma displays. Anyone paying much attention 15 years ago would remember a lot more really, really bad plasma displays than good ones. Plasma nostalgia is pretty misguided. The very high cost for the top end is because they are hard to make and anything but the top end was barely adequate.
Out of my ignorance and curiosity; What does the above even mean?
Shouldn't be any reason for this - these "channels" would be similar to the apps on your device. Similar to the HBONow channel. You can pick from a listing of episodes to stream.
Netflix 4K is up and running. you need a 4K TV with Netflix to see it. Same goes for Amazon. We did one of the pilots for them in 4K. Works fine as long as you have the hardware and bandwidth. I find it completely unnecessary though. It really doesn't add much to the viewing experience. Everything is a tiny bit sharper. A tiny bit. Big deal. I'd rather see better shows in HD rather than crappy shows in 4K. They need to put money into better content which both services are in fact doing. Broadcast will fill the lowest common denominator everytime.Netflix were also rumoured to offer a 4K stream. not sure what is happening with that though.
4K is nice - would be nice for Apple to offer it also. but is a problem for customers who face small bandwidth allocations per month. Not practical for quite a lot of users at the moment.
Because it's $100 cheaper.
There is no reason to ever, ever want DirecTV.
I think this could be a big thing. Sure there will probably be some channels not included at first, and people will complain. But if this takes off, especially if it cuts into cable/satellite subscriptions, the other channels will be begging to join in. Then, Apple has all the leverage.
Not many companies can pull this off. Just maybe Apple can.