Anyone know why the atv4 is not updating to the GM seed? When I go to system, updates it says no updates found.
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 TV Gains CBS All Access, NBC, and Made to Measure Channels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You must have old information, so I provided you with this link.
"New Study Shows A Rise In Cord Cutting – 8.2 Percent Ditched Pay TV In 2014, Up 1.3% YoY"
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/23/ne...tched-pay-tv-in-2014-up-1-3-yoy/#.fds7km:mdNB
The media companies are bleeding red ink. Production studios are going to places like Netflix because they get better deals and more creative control. This isn't a trickle, it's a bloodbath for the networks. Sports is the biggest revenue stream that is holding up their tents. Once the sports outlets realize they might have a better deal on streaming services with cool app statistic overlays customized by the user and such, they'll drop the middle man networks and go with delivery through streaming devices, the new better cable box.
To underscore, I'm paying less for the same content by using Apple iTunes purchases Netflix, Hulu, etc. Pay TV in a sense but on my terms…no commercials…watching all TV on demand without having to fuss with a DVR…all content immediately available on all devices without having to verify I have a cable account. My monthly cost for cable was far higher and I didn't even have a HD level subscription!
Cable subscribers pay for all the channels and all the content even if they don't watch all of it. I'm not. I still watch all the stuff I did before, but I only pay for what I watch. Novel idea that the cable companies don't embrace, but they could. They just won't, and that is why they are media dinosaurs.
Nothing stripped down in my viewing all at unless you count all the commercials I'm missing. I still have an HD antenna for free over-the-air viewing to see the major networks too.
The only people that it doesn't make sense to cut the cord is people who want a lot of sports channels. That will change.
If you feel a great disturbance in the force, it's not the new Star Wars trailer…it's the sudden shift in change from old media to new media delivery.
BTW, where did most people see the new Star Wars trailers?
Answer: YouTube. Not on network TV.
"YouTube is winning the play-count race as the official Star Wars channel is climbing" towards 13 million views as of 10:30 a.m. PDT."
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/star-wars-force-awakens-online-reaction/
Last edited:
Wow, there's a lot of cord cutting denial going on here. I cut last year and with the money saved I was able to buy a much faster internet speed (all around good) and get Netflix and Hulu Plus that I use on Apple TV. That all still less than my old deal. Also good. There are only a few things I miss from cable, but not enough to be a part of that train wreck of a sinking ship. With Crackle, the news (CBS, NBC, Sky, etc) all included free, that's just a bonus.
Let's be honest, the kids (under 30) are not going to be purchasing cable, the same way that they will not be buying home phones (or be lured by the constant junk mail about signing up for phone/cable/internet). It's just not how things will work. All providers (including holdouts like the NFL) will have to come around. It's just the way it is, and it's how things have been going.
Every study done shows considerable drop-offs in cable subscribers, every month. And it gets larger every month. Just look at recent articles (past 2 months) in Fortune, Variety, NY Times, Bloomberg Business, etc. Every single article supports this massive drop in cable tv subscribers as truth. The problem is that the cable companies still control the pipeline. That will also have to change at some point. If not soon, then there will come a point when the pipeline is no longer necessary and it will all be in the air (through satellite/towers/etc). Look to the future.
Let's be honest, the kids (under 30) are not going to be purchasing cable, the same way that they will not be buying home phones (or be lured by the constant junk mail about signing up for phone/cable/internet). It's just not how things will work. All providers (including holdouts like the NFL) will have to come around. It's just the way it is, and it's how things have been going.
Every study done shows considerable drop-offs in cable subscribers, every month. And it gets larger every month. Just look at recent articles (past 2 months) in Fortune, Variety, NY Times, Bloomberg Business, etc. Every single article supports this massive drop in cable tv subscribers as truth. The problem is that the cable companies still control the pipeline. That will also have to change at some point. If not soon, then there will come a point when the pipeline is no longer necessary and it will all be in the air (through satellite/towers/etc). Look to the future.
I left out that those numbers were for the 2QTR of 2015. Your report was a poll taken from a sample of 3,144 customer which can be slanted.
The numbers are reported are directly from 95% of the top pay TV providers. They are actual numbers and better represent the numbers leaving the pay TV market. This report is for the 2nd qtr 2015. http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...at-keeps-americans-from-cutting-the-cord.aspx
The 1st qtr 2015 had a minimal gain but lost some in the 2nd. Smoothed out over the first 6 months providers lost 294,000 subscribers.
I am in this category. I watch a tremendous amount of sports. In reality that is not going to change anytime soon because in market games are blacked out. I fully understand that there are DNS blockers but they do not work on devices that use location services (iPhones, android phones,iPads, tablets). Most people will not want to deal with them either.
IF ESPN ever offered a stand alone option, I think they're price would be steep but could include all Disney channels (ABC, Disney and ESPN).
In your post #150 of this thread you cite a report (without a link for proof I might add) that "Just under .005% of pay tv providers (I think you meant subscribers) have left."
Do you realize that .005% is nothing and that percentage is highly questionable? Now you say they lost 294,000 subscribers in 6 months. That's a far larger percentage than .005% even if half of that .005% was for the 2nd quarter.
You believe cable company numbers, which can legally be skewed by them any number of ways, but not a reputable polling service of real people. I'd bet over half the people on this thread knows a cord cutter. I personally know several myself that happened over the last 5 years.
Almost all the under 20 people that work with my wife don't have cable. Heck, they barely can pay off their college loans. I have never ever seen so many people off cable services, ever. I think it's mostly due to a soft economy.
The opening is there for these smart tv boxes to begin to replace media delivery from networks. I'm living proof it pays to cut cable TV services. It was easier than I thought it would be.
We all saw how the music industry destroyed Napster instead of buying it and embracing digital music delivery for small payments. Instead the music industry let Apple take that over. The networks look like they are going down the same path with their head in the sand. People only want to pay for what they want…not subsidize the whole deal for the network's benefit.
I'll say it again, the ship has sailed and the networks missed the boat, just like the music industry distribution that Apple took over (now with Amazon and Google too).
Last edited:
294,000 is not a big number when you compare it to 95,000,000 Pay TV provider subs. Millions are going to have to leave before you'll see any change in the system.
I asked the same question to Leichtman Research Group who is a media research and consulting firm. He answered me with: "As public companies, providers cannot fake the numbers, or report long-term non-pays as subscribers, or report free subscribers (like Netflix does) -- over a decade ago there were some cable execs put in prison for shady subscriber reporting".
Now in fairness that does include business and basic cable subs as well.
I'm not questioning whether the polling service is reputable at all. They survey 3,000 people. But what 3,000? Are they mostly renters, 20 somethings, rich people..etc? And it is all in how the questions are asked too. The groups that most likely to not use a TV provider are renters, twenty somethings and believe it or not-rich people. The latter two groups watch less traditional TV and rely more on Netflix. My son, mid 20's, has cable but mostly watches Netflix.
Are satellite/cable companies losing subscribers? Yes and have been since a peak in 2010. But as the article I attached above says, they are losing in a trickle not a mad rush. The economy definitely has had an affect on everything, including the pay tv market.
The article I posted explains why it is a slow process. I looked back over the past 4 qtr and providers lost 753,000 subs. That is a lot but not when compared with 95,000,000.
I don't think it is the networks that are slow. Networks are driven by advertisers. Companies are always going to need to advertise their products. If not with the networks than probably in the shows or movies themselves. Just think if Sheldon and Amy finally decide to have coitus, Amy says "Sheldon did you buy the new and improved ribbed Trojans?"
Last thought. If suddenly tomorrow providers lost half their customer base and everyone did things your way, don't you think costs will rise with the demand?
Trust me, I am not against you at all. I'm just a realist and I understand how the industry works.
Nonsense. I worked directly with a CFO of a well-known global Fortune 100 company and I'm well aware of the legal things they can construct to make the earnings and numbers look a certain way to please investors.
You want further evidence? Read this.
"5 tech titans made $10B in one day"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/10/23/tech-titans-billion-day-stock/74462588/
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. join Apple in the top of the market. Why? Because they provide new media services and mobile devices to ride the wave of the new media audience. I don't see Time Warner on the list, nor any other network biggies.
Cord cutting isn't just some niche trend, it's a real trend and it's the future.
Sports is the backbone holding up cable. There isn't a matching streaming service at the same price as cable…yet. But, the soft economy is forcing people to choose wiser ways to spend their money and they found these smart boxes like AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, NVidia Shield etc. to meet their needs.
The only thing we seem to agree on is that the networks/telecomms hold a monopoly on the internet services and that is the slim thread that they are holding on to for now.
Wrong. Advertisers aren't slow. Why do you think Google rocketed to the top of the stock market? They were the first to measure audience online viewing, track users and position advertising for full effectiveness. I work in advertising and I am well aware of what Google has done to position itself for ad revenues in all forms of online, streaming services and mobile advertising (Apple too). More people view ads through online and streaming services than traditional TV. I proved it to you in my pervious post #152 where over 13 millions viewed the Star Wars trailers via YouTube. More than on traditional TV. This was accomplished over mobile, set top boxes and computer devices…not cable TV. Advertisers are more adept at leveraging viral ads than networks.
Likely not because larger volume purchases can fill the same money bucket with smaller prices. Most iTunes single music songs still cost .99 cents despite the fact millions have flocked to Apple to buy music. 4K flat panel TV's cost less than the lower resolution TV's from just a few years ago making purchases affordable to almost everyone. The cost for a Walkman audio player for me in the late 70's is about the same cost of a more sophisticated music player, the iPod Touch from Apple…almost 40 years later! My current high speed internet cost less than my dial-up services from the 90's.
The trick is the volume must be there. Smart TV boxes are still in the beginning stages of creating a volume audience. A soft economy is helping them to transition the market there.
The cord cutting footsteps you hear running from commercial-infested cable is becoming a stampede.
Last edited:
Um, they don't want cord cutting to take off. This is what it's taken over a decade form the practical application of streaming technology for it to even get to where it is now. They want you watching live TV with ADs because that is how they make their money.
They also make their money by having affiliates who pay the networks fees.... this is why you have the vile cable authentication requirement. In some markets, CBS/ABC/NBC do not own the stations that broadcast their network. (Think of it like a franchise or McDonald's.) They do not have the legal right to let you stream content within X miles of those broadcast areas and would need that affiliate to give permission. The bad news is like fast food, most of the outlets are franchises. Example, McDonald's agree to not open a corporate store in the same area as a franchise. IMagine if they opened corporate stores across the street from all the franchises that did well?
This is also why a lot of streaming deals Apple is trying to negotiate are having delays and issues. CBS for example, has to work out deals with all of their affiliates.
HBO on the other hand, only had to fear the ire of cable companies when launching HBO Go. Cable needs HBO, HBO doesn't need cable. Broadcast networks NEED affiliates and there is the ire.
Great educated answer.
I think there is one other part of the equation that has to be considered in the slow adoption of cord cutting.
Most people find out it is not really that much cheaper.
You still need a broadband internet connection (most phone companies will no longer sell DSL without phone service <Verizon>). This still requires them in most cases to buy internet from phone or cable providers.
*This also puts them in the subscription count.... companies can be creative in how they report "we churned X subscribers" and breakout the details of cable, net, etc in a way its less obvious and buried. Number really have to be analyzed because you can make number comes from a perspective to justify any talking point without really lying.
Cable and phone operators have DRASTICALLY increased the ala carte price of internet without a bundle. If you go cheap (and those deals usually expire 6-12 months and increase the price), your streaming experience sucks. Video buffers, it stalls, or takes 20 minutes to buffer enough to even start to play basic 720P HD content.
So the average person is stuck paying $40-$60 at some point (promo price ends, they got internet speeds that are viable) for just internet.
Internet: $55 (going in the middle, because it really about what you HAVE to pay for the right speed)
Netflix: $8
Hulu: $8
Total: $71
Then for sports.... Mo $$$ HBO Mo $$
At $71, you are already at the price of some basic cable packages with internet anyway.
All these cord cutting arguments usually forgo the cost of the internet required to cut the cord. This is why Verizon makes you buy phone, or Comcast gives you a $30 per month deal that expires in a year and jumps up..... and those packages have speeds too slow to stream 1080P.
Now.... initiative like Google Fiber.... when those hit more people and competition in low cost high speed internet are more available and Comcast and Verizon have true competition, then cord cutting might be a viable option.
For most people, that hassle to save $10-$20 a month isn't worth it.
I think there is one other part of the equation that has to be considered in the slow adoption of cord cutting.
Most people find out it is not really that much cheaper.
You still need a broadband internet connection (most phone companies will no longer sell DSL without phone service <Verizon>). This still requires them in most cases to buy internet from phone or cable providers.
*This also puts them in the subscription count.... companies can be creative in how they report "we churned X subscribers" and breakout the details of cable, net, etc in a way its less obvious and buried. Number really have to be analyzed because you can make number comes from a perspective to justify any talking point without really lying.
Cable and phone operators have DRASTICALLY increased the ala carte price of internet without a bundle. If you go cheap (and those deals usually expire 6-12 months and increase the price), your streaming experience sucks. Video buffers, it stalls, or takes 20 minutes to buffer enough to even start to play basic 720P HD content.
So the average person is stuck paying $40-$60 at some point (promo price ends, they got internet speeds that are viable) for just internet.
Internet: $55 (going in the middle, because it really about what you HAVE to pay for the right speed)
Netflix: $8
Hulu: $8
Total: $71
Then for sports.... Mo $$$ HBO Mo $$
At $71, you are already at the price of some basic cable packages with internet anyway.
All these cord cutting arguments usually forgo the cost of the internet required to cut the cord. This is why Verizon makes you buy phone, or Comcast gives you a $30 per month deal that expires in a year and jumps up..... and those packages have speeds too slow to stream 1080P.
Now.... initiative like Google Fiber.... when those hit more people and competition in low cost high speed internet are more available and Comcast and Verizon have true competition, then cord cutting might be a viable option.
For most people, that hassle to save $10-$20 a month isn't worth it.
You're ignoring that there are already bundled streaming packages out there on other devices for people that hang on to the traditional old school TV 1.0 channel models. Apple is negotiating for that too.
But does that matter?
Most younger viewers have filled their viewing time by subscribing to channels on YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo and other free services and watch free over the air HD TV with indoor antenna's. Not to mention all the free music, movies, news and other video via free apps like Crackle.
Look, live TV is 1/3 commercials. I don't have commercials in my streaming setup. I get that 1/3 back to enjoy my viewing. That adds up to real time! And, I still pay way less than traditional cable.
My monthly outlay:
$45 - highest speed fiber optic business class internet (more than most people pay).
$8 - Netflix
$12 - Hulu ($4 extra gets you commercial free)
$0 - over the air HD antenna for live tv - major networks and local news and local channels
$0 - Youtube, Vimeo, using airplay to beam video from websites to my AppleTV
$0 - Crackle app (movies, TV)
$0 - Misc apps to get live news, free music, radio stations across the globe and locally, plus much much more
______
$65 month
For this I get way more than I got with traditional cable too in the way I want it.
My cable bill 4 years back was $88/month and climbing. Shockingly most of my channels were standard low definition, 640 by 480 fullscreen channels, because I had the entry level package. I didn't buy up to widescreen HD like some people that paid over $120/month with extra channels. Checking last week the SD channels for the entry package haven't changed! They are still what you get!! In this day of widescreen hi-def TV's that low definition SD image quality sucks over any regular streaming service.
Having 500+ channels of mostly junk live tv that you could never view all content anyway is not superior to a custom setup tailored to your needs with set top box services.
Live Network TV ----------> TV 1.0
Set Top SmartBox TV ----> TV 2.0 <----The future is here
But does that matter?
Most younger viewers have filled their viewing time by subscribing to channels on YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo and other free services and watch free over the air HD TV with indoor antenna's. Not to mention all the free music, movies, news and other video via free apps like Crackle.
Look, live TV is 1/3 commercials. I don't have commercials in my streaming setup. I get that 1/3 back to enjoy my viewing. That adds up to real time! And, I still pay way less than traditional cable.
My monthly outlay:
$45 - highest speed fiber optic business class internet (more than most people pay).
$8 - Netflix
$12 - Hulu ($4 extra gets you commercial free)
$0 - over the air HD antenna for live tv - major networks and local news and local channels
$0 - Youtube, Vimeo, using airplay to beam video from websites to my AppleTV
$0 - Crackle app (movies, TV)
$0 - Misc apps to get live news, free music, radio stations across the globe and locally, plus much much more
______
$65 month
For this I get way more than I got with traditional cable too in the way I want it.
My cable bill 4 years back was $88/month and climbing. Shockingly most of my channels were standard low definition, 640 by 480 fullscreen channels, because I had the entry level package. I didn't buy up to widescreen HD like some people that paid over $120/month with extra channels. Checking last week the SD channels for the entry package haven't changed! They are still what you get!! In this day of widescreen hi-def TV's that low definition SD image quality sucks over any regular streaming service.
Having 500+ channels of mostly junk live tv that you could never view all content anyway is not superior to a custom setup tailored to your needs with set top box services.
Live Network TV ----------> TV 1.0
Set Top SmartBox TV ----> TV 2.0 <----The future is here
Last edited:
I pay $60 for cable internet. Unlimited, 60mps, Netflix,Hulu,feelin,CBS. Still cheaper than $130 for cable and internet.
I feel that “cord cutting” people are more wish casting the demise of satellite/cable TV. There is an erosion of subscribers but the providers will adapt when people start dumping them by the millions per quarter not by a few hundred thousand.
They are already allowing more flexible viewing on devices and you can also watch what is on your DVR. I do think that the providers have a long way to go in that department. I think at some point there will be ala carte offers by the providers. But whether it is ala carte by a provider or to a “cord cutter”, price per sub will be higher. Remember the term “unintended consequences”.
Through all of this I am so glad that for your TV entertainment you are rooting for TV providers to lose subscribers and have employees lose their jobs just to make you happy.
That's part of the “unintended consequences”.
The fact that public companies are under a microscope I don’t think they will risk everything to lie to make the numbers better. Content providers are also watching closely because it affects how much money the providers pay them thus their bottom line. Remember, content providers get money on a per subscriber basis. ESPN/ESPN2 gets $6.77/ sub.
With the scrutiny today, it is more unlikely that they do.
I can't say that it is the backbone but a strong reason. You can purchase MLB, NHL and NBA streaming of “out of market” games. The problem is seeing your local team. Yes there are DNS blockers to overcome that but doesn’t work on devices that use location services. When that happens I can consider making the move. Directv every year prices matches MLB Extra Innings with MLB.TV. We also get MLB.TV for subscribing for EI.
The other reason is the networks haven’t adopted stand alone channels as of yet. If they do you’ll be paying a higher price than what is paid in a provider package. I understand it is all about choice but with few subs they’ll need to make up the difference somehow. I know AMC was planning a stand alone streaming service but has opted for a streaming of just horror type shows or movies for $4.99/month.
You missed the point. Comparing online views of a highly popular movie is not the same advertising I’m talking about. My point was for product advertising commercials. Companies are going to need to advertise their products somewhere? Online people try to avoid commercials or any type of advertising by using ad blockers.
If your are in advertising than you are a bit of a hypocrite. Getting products seen is what you do but in the same breath you avoid commercials like the plaque.
Above somewhere you said that you use iTunes as well. You didn’t factor that cost in the above costs. How many shows/series do you order? From what I gather the average cost is around $20-25 per series.
For others, they do what you do and include HBO Now and Showtime. The main point that posters in this thread want is to use the ATV channels w/o having to enter TV provider info. That will only occur if they were offered as stand alone and that would have a monthly cost as well.
The internet cost is not just needed for cord cutters. On-Demand from the TV providers also require an internet connection.
You're overreacting now. Nobody here is wishing ill on others.Did you feel we should still be on flip phones because people would loose their jobs? Did you disparage people that stopped buying Blackberry phones because there were lost jobs (because their management didn't keep up with the smartphone race)? Of course you didn't. Technological innovation by some creates change and some companies don't keep pace due to poor management (like the Networks). Blame the shortsighted execs for lost jobs, not me.
Again you're making assumptions. As an ad professional I've had to grow and change to meet client's needs and keep up with the new media distribution or I'd be out of a job. I don't wish ill on anyone, but companies and services must keep up with people's needs. Just a fact, not some grudge I have like you seem to want to portray.
I've been working with CFO's on annual reports for decades and have conversations and understand quite well the legal means that are used to portray a positive side to investors. Nothing at all illegal about it. I said legal. You said "lie", which is to clearly misunderstand what is done to portray company numbers in a positive light. It's kind of like GM filling the sales dealerships with cars to make it look like sales are up, when those sales were to resellers/dealers and had not made it to consumers yet.
Apparently the common ground between you and I is that sports holds a major attraction to blunt cord cutting…for now.
Again with the personal attacks. Let's stick to facts shall we? People have a fixed amount of viewing time and the web, mobile and smart tv boxes are taking ad revenue away from old school TV 1.0 live TV in a big way, and will continue to do so. Website ads don't usually keep people from viewing page content, but show on the website the same time as the content. Smart tv boxes that have commercials or ads before content plays will give way to ads that appear for a time on the video and disappear, much like on YouTube. If people are disrupted too much it's shown they generally will not view the content unless there is strong motivation. Ad overlays are the future. Notice I'm not saying ads will disappear, but you can leverage ways to minimize it and maximize your viewing time, which I do. I watch smart.Personally, I don't wish to see ad content as I'm steeped in it during my work day. Nothing hypocritical about it. I pay Hulu $4/month extra for the privilege. Hulu people are innovative and smart.
Yup. I buy a season pass for "Rick and Morty". $20 for the year. That's an extra $1.66/month bringing my monthly grand total to $66.66/month. Still way less than cable.
You still seem hooked on the separate is more cost. I'm proof I get more for less. You saw another post above confirming this. Still you disbelieve the facts?
YOU said cord cutters are rooting for job loses
. Never said anything of the sort. The "unintended consequences" of Networks and Cable execs NOT EMBRACING new media digital distribution results in lost jobs. Not the way I buy. Someone has a job because I AM buying other services. Those services are leaner and meaner than cable and Networks because they have advanced. How have you missed that point in all that I've posted!?Hookemfins your signature shows this:
Mac Mini late 2012 i7 & MBPr 15 early 2013iPad Air 32 GB Space GrayiPhone 6 Apple TV 3So how is it you have already put your dollars in new media, but refuse to believe it's the future? Why didn't you just buy more expensive cable services and more TV's instead of an iPad and an AppleTV? You've already given your dollars to companies that are paving the way to better entertainment and viewing services.
Last edited: