Agreed. It's not like *any* of it is coming to Canada anytime before 2025 regardless. Just give me something with a better UI than the current Apple TV and I'll be happy.
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's Desire to Include Local Stations in Streaming TV Service Could Delay Launch Beyond WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. It's not like *any* of it is coming to Canada anytime before 2025 regardless. Just give me something with a better UI than the current Apple TV and I'll be happy.
Roku doesn't have my iTunes music and movies and podcasts. It does not have airplay either. what does Roku do better? I'm confused.
Next Day or Live?
Live TV with Commercials (a lot of them) is not what I want anyway. If I DVR a show it is not because I want to watch Live it is because I want to watch it without commercials sometime later.
In anticipation of going all streaming I have been playing with a few options.
1. Hulu. You get next day pretty much all Broadcast Networks (and more) except CBS which has it own Streaming Option. The commercials on Hulu are usually about 50% or less then Live Commercials. I hate commercials but this has workable for me. Have not got the wife to switch.
2. CBS is charging $5.99 per month but you don't get Live in all of the Cities. Even for CBS. But I did test it on a Roku and not bad but still 50% commercials. That should be easy to add. Hopefully they have a Showtime Option.
I say just go the Hulu and CBS Route and only do Live where you can. You can already get ABC Live in some areas. I also watch CNBC for financial News and it has a Live Feed.
Of course I prefer a no-commercial price option. But at least would be nice to have a pause option with the ability to FF thru commercials.
I think the Dish Hopper always for Skipping commercials after 7 days. So addition options could be offered.
Live TV with Commercials (a lot of them) is not what I want anyway. If I DVR a show it is not because I want to watch Live it is because I want to watch it without commercials sometime later.
In anticipation of going all streaming I have been playing with a few options.
1. Hulu. You get next day pretty much all Broadcast Networks (and more) except CBS which has it own Streaming Option. The commercials on Hulu are usually about 50% or less then Live Commercials. I hate commercials but this has workable for me. Have not got the wife to switch.
2. CBS is charging $5.99 per month but you don't get Live in all of the Cities. Even for CBS. But I did test it on a Roku and not bad but still 50% commercials. That should be easy to add. Hopefully they have a Showtime Option.
I say just go the Hulu and CBS Route and only do Live where you can. You can already get ABC Live in some areas. I also watch CNBC for financial News and it has a Live Feed.
Of course I prefer a no-commercial price option. But at least would be nice to have a pause option with the ability to FF thru commercials.
I think the Dish Hopper always for Skipping commercials after 7 days. So addition options could be offered.
Agreed. How can we possibly complain about all the missing features and how much better some other service is if Apple does not release it. We need something right now!
Seriously, I cut the cable years ago. If Apple releases something that is just another cable subscription, I will not be signing up. I prefer to wait for something that makes sense and is a better approach. What they have done to date of just adding channels that still require cable subscription in order to use makes no sense to me and is utterly useless (not just to me but to anyone that is a cable cutter).
And this is the point, puting content out there that requires cable means there is no point to the ATV when I already have the cable box.
So NO! Please do not just throw something out there, that is not Apple and not what is needed.
Do it right!
You nailed it. I cut the cord well over a decade ago.
All these channels they keep adding just get "hidden" by me because they are "utterly useless" to us cable cutters (as you stated).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That sounds fantastic. But rumors of late have implied that Apple tried for that (again) and nobody wanted to play ball. So (again per most recent rumors), Apple is going to roll out a bundle of channels selected by Apple that is generally being perceived to be their own variation of a basic cable package.
If there is on-demand, it's probably on-demand as already implemented from services like Dish & DirecTV and various cable providers: traditional ad-loaded cable channels plus some on-demand content from the networks behind some of the channels in the bundle. Even Comcast (and both SATT players) already has a pretty robust version of that.
So, unless rumors over the last 4+ months are wrong, Apple appears to have given up on some al-a-carte (and commercial-free) dream (except the way they've already had it for years now) and is instead trying to bring a variation of the existing cable TV model to a new
TV via a streaming connection. If that's true, then ad-loaded local channels mixed in via a OTA setup would blend right in like they do in existing TV models. Apparently, the grand attraction (in this) will be some superior UI (that, if actually superior enough to motivate the masses to want to switch, seems like it would be quickly replicated by the existing players) and maybe price if the channels Apple chooses to include in their bundle happens to line up with what a prospective subscriber would consider their own favorite channels (which, knowing how things work around here, many will quickly deem any channels Apple would select as the best available channels and all others are in the "99.9% don't want", "stupid", "useless programming" junk pool). Of course, I don't see why a Comcast, etc won't assemble the same mix of channels plus maybe a few juicy ones at or below Apple's price, replicate anything innovative in a new UI and bundle that with their broadband offering so that there's is the better deal for the exact same mix of channels.
Now, this virtual DVR (watch it whenever you want) piece of that seems doable in the channels that stream. To make that work with an OTA tuner means linking back to the computer to which each
TV is already tethered and storing locally recorded stuff there (pretty much exactly how stuff from companies like Elgato work now). One would have to plan what they want to record via OTA (just like they do now with whatever kind of UI they are using) but otherwise, the watch part of that would be seamless- just like picking something to watch that is stored in iCloud.The OTA option delivers best quality (better-to-much-better than streaming quality due to compression), works even when your broadband feed is down, is free* (so it doesn't require Apple to pay the local free* channels something to stream them), would deliver the bulk of what is generally the most popular TV programming receivable without eating wired broadband bandwidth for those dealing with caps AND would mitigate this rumor of delays because Apple is yet to strike deals with hundreds of local stations to stream their content.
The alternative is to keep waiting for a new box from Apple until after Eddy finds time to forge a deal with each local broadcaster (last I saw there is well over a thousand of them and that's me being U.S.-centric instead of thinking about the whole world) if bundling them into an iCloud delivery option is the ONLY way Apple wants to do it.
Last edited:
Exactly! I mean, I AirPlay and screen mirror to my Roku all the time! I stream iTunes radio to all the Roku in my house too! And control it from my AppleWatch! Roku integrates so well into my Apple ecosystem! I just don't understand why ANYbody would want an AppleTV...
Agreed that they will follow the money and right now the money is still much greener on the traditional broadcast side of the fence. The majority of the audience still watches ca/sat/OTA (not streaming) and ad revenue is better for a number of reasons (though it's shrinking industry wide). If you are a big player with deep pockets you have more money to experiment and take chances with. If you are a little guy then you don't have that luxury.
It's kinda like being on a big ship that you are pretty sure is slowly going down. What do you do? If you jump off too early you risk injury or death on impact with the water. If you jump too late you risk being pulled under by the sinking ship. But the ship might not sink at all before help arrives so going in the water at all could be worse than staying on board.
Dicey time to be a content distributor.
I assume the retransmission fees are a major sticking point. The local stations aren't going to give away their signal to Apple for free or cut a sweet deal because then they would have to do the same for the cable companies. Retransmission fees are becoming a bigger part of a local stations revenue since ad revenue across the industry has been going down. This is the primary reason that Aereo got shut down. If Aereo was legal then cable companies would just use the same 'work around' in order to avoid paying retransmission fees to local stations.
Agreed that a separate OTA tuner seems like a very inelegant solution by Apple standards. A totally on-demand experience is a completely different, and unrealistic IMO, ball of wax.
Ugly ass GUI and remote. No thanks I'll keep my ATV which does everything I need, thanks for your concern.
Until I can get a stable internet pipe in my home (Thanks again, Comcrap) the wife doesn't want to continue being a cord-cutter. Unfortunately in my home, my family is so tech-addicted that a few hours without internet service and they act like the world is ending.
Meanwhile, I use the time to go for a run, or catch up on my favorite books.
Meanwhile, I use the time to go for a run, or catch up on my favorite books.
I believe DVR functionality is coming to Xbox One. It has been reported numerous times in rumors lately and seeing as how Microsoft wants Xbox to be the be all end all "One" media center of everyones living room, I would imagine it will be coming sooner then later.
Thats a bummer about your internet. We pay $30 a month for just internet. Netflix is $7 and sling tv is $20, with OTA being free. I dropped amazon prime until they actually provide decent content and Hulu is complete trash. Soo... yeah, it's about $57 a month for out "TV" needs. And depending on how much we watch, we drop Sling TV occasionally sense like Netflix, its a month to month deal with no contracts.
I guess dependting on your ISP, you milage may vary.
Not everyone can get a good OTA signal (which was the problem cable TV was originally designed to solve).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
clearQAM may be another way for those that can't receive OTA locals. Often the same jack is set up with both. Since broadband is generally provided by local cable and clearQAM locals are generally on that same cable, that may be another option supporting adding an OTA jack to a new TV. Those that can receive via OTA or those that rely on cable to receive locals might be able to get them either way.
I think the only way the streaming locals concept actually works (as I just can't see Apple making the time for this "hobby" to forge 1000+ deals) is something close to the "as is" UI, meaning each local station interested in being on Apple TV makes their own App and Apple uses location info to lock out or hide local station Apps that are not already "owning" the local market. To me, that would be a big mess, but probably THE way if "we" can only see this working by locals also being streamed via iCloud.
Obviously, if I had all say here, I'd want the OTA jack with a couple of tuners added to a new box. iCloud is not exactly "always on" reliable and local broadband can have it's on "always on" reliability too. We get a hurricane here and we can lose local broadband for upwards of a few days, yet that can be the exact time when one really needs to have access to local news and information. OTA doesn't have such problems.
TV. Those that can receive via OTA or those that rely on cable to receive locals might be able to get them either way.I think the only way the streaming locals concept actually works (as I just can't see Apple making the time for this "hobby" to forge 1000+ deals) is something close to the "as is" UI, meaning each local station interested in being on Apple TV makes their own App and Apple uses location info to lock out or hide local station Apps that are not already "owning" the local market. To me, that would be a big mess, but probably THE way if "we" can only see this working by locals also being streamed via iCloud.
Obviously, if I had all say here, I'd want the OTA jack with a couple of tuners added to a new box. iCloud is not exactly "always on" reliable and local broadband can have it's on "always on" reliability too. We get a hurricane here and we can lose local broadband for upwards of a few days, yet that can be the exact time when one really needs to have access to local news and information. OTA doesn't have such problems.
Last edited:
Sadly for me, it's just not worth cutting the cord. Internet alone is $65 a month from my only available broadband provider, and for like $102 after tax, I'm getting 50mbps, 80 channels and HBO, it's not worth fiddling with antennas to get TV in all my rooms and then having to pay streaming services. For the $35 I just use my Tivo and record the locals that would have a bad signal at my house.
(US info)
Iin 2012 the FCC reversed their decision on requiring local channels to be encoded clearQAM only. The cable companies are now switching to encoded QAM, and giving one legacy decoder for free in their basic cable package (apart from the regular settop box, which you will pay rental on). That means that the digital cable input on the back of your TV will only be able to see PBS stations and other minor ones.
Even if they hadn't done this and we had clearQAM, the cable companies were continually moving the channel assignments around as they optimized their on-cable frequency layout. From one week to the next, your favorite local channels would jump around.
On top of that, without a good program guide it's pretty useless anyway, and you're back to using the cable company's set top box just to see what's on.
It was a mess, and is still a mess.
Tivo pioneered the solution, but at a time when customers weren't used to paying additional monthly fees.
an OTA tuner solves most of the customers problem when at home for people with adequate antenna range, but makes the system too complicated when the customer wants to watch on their smartphone, or timeshift it.
Since 2006 I've been running Windows Media Center which was IR blasting a comcast set top box, added HD OTA around 2008, and switched to a ceton tuner with cablecard when they first came out.
Being able to hide the cable channels I don't get (or never plan on watching) is huge. And as they say in the forums, this system has high WAF (Wife Approval Factor). Having used DVRs since the early Tivos, that feels like the right way of doing it.
My home screen on the TV has to have the list of programs (not channels) that I told it I want to watch, not a 3rd party "curated" or algorithmic list of what they want to promote, however smart and aligned with my viewing habits that might be. I want to be in control of my viewing...
Oh, and I'm not giving up the ability to skip commercials for any incentive.
Last edited:
While OTA is very un-Apple like, OTA coupled with HDMI bypass input can make Apple TV a default input source. One of the greatest appeals of Apple-branded TV set is not having to worry about input source to interact with Apple TV. Now that prospect is looking highly unlikely, I would want at least HDMI bypass input.
Yes, I realize HDMI CEC allows more intelligent and often automatic source switching (FYI, current Apple TV doesn't support CEC), but not having to switch source at all affords many more benefits, such as Siri activation, push notification, and more.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, I much favor the OTA option- just threw out clearQAM as another option for those commenting about being out of range for OTA. Rather than writing "tough luck" or "just move then", the clearQAM option may apply.
On our system, clearQAM is still in place. Those boxes referenced (for us anyway) convert digital channels in a basic cable package into analog for older TVs. There is no rental fee for them. However, we plug cable directly into a digital TV and it finds the clearQAM channels. Yes, they sometimes move the clearQAM local channels but not weekly. And if they are missing, a simple channel scan finds them again.
Dish & DirecTV have no problem merging local channels into their satt channel guide. Other than a color scheme that illustrates which are locals vs. which are satt, one can't tell the difference visually or in functionality. All of the programming on the local channels appears just like the programming on satt channels. The DVR records either kind of channel the same way and plays them back the same way. Streaming DVR'd or live content to mobile devices at home or on the road works just fine (I recently was given free wifi on a plane and watched my local OTA channel live at 30K feet many states away from home).
On our system, clearQAM is still in place. Those boxes referenced (for us anyway) convert digital channels in a basic cable package into analog for older TVs. There is no rental fee for them. However, we plug cable directly into a digital TV and it finds the clearQAM channels. Yes, they sometimes move the clearQAM local channels but not weekly. And if they are missing, a simple channel scan finds them again.
Dish & DirecTV have no problem merging local channels into their satt channel guide. Other than a color scheme that illustrates which are locals vs. which are satt, one can't tell the difference visually or in functionality. All of the programming on the local channels appears just like the programming on satt channels. The DVR records either kind of channel the same way and plays them back the same way. Streaming DVR'd or live content to mobile devices at home or on the road works just fine (I recently was given free wifi on a plane and watched my local OTA channel live at 30K feet many states away from home).
That sounds fantastic. But rumors of late have implied that Apple tried for that (again) and nobody wanted to play ball. So (again per most recent rumors), Apple is going to roll out a bundle of channels selected by Apple that is generally being perceived to be their own variation of a basic cable package.
If there is on-demand, it's probably on-demand as already implemented from services like Dish & DirecTV and various cable providers: traditional ad-loaded cable channels plus some on-demand content from the networks behind some of the channels in the bundle. Even Comcast (and both SATT players) already has a pretty robust version of that.
So, unless rumors over the last 4+ months are wrong, Apple appears to have given up on some al-a-carte (and commercial-free) dream (except the way they've already had it for years now) and is instead trying to bring a variation of the existing cable TV model to a new
Apparently, the grand attraction (in this) will be some superior UI (that, if actually superior enough to motivate the masses to want to switch, seems like it would be quickly replicated by the existing players) and maybe price if the channels Apple chooses to include in their bundle happens to line up with what a prospective subscriber would consider their own favorite channels (which, knowing how things work around here, many will quickly deem any channels Apple would select as the best available channels and all others are in the "99.9% don't want", "stupid", "useless programming" junk pool). Of course, I don't see why a Comcast, etc won't assemble the same mix of channels plus maybe a few juicy ones at or below Apple's price, replicate anything innovative in a new UI and bundle that with their broadband offering so that there's is the better deal for the exact same mix of channels.
Now, this virtual DVR (watch it whenever you want) piece of that seems doable in the channels that stream. To make that work with an OTA tuner means linking back to the computer to which each
The OTA option delivers best quality (better-to-much-better than streaming quality due to compression), works even when your broadband feed is down, is free* (so it doesn't require Apple to pay the local free* channels something to stream them), would deliver the bulk of what is generally the most popular TV programming receivable without eating wired broadband bandwidth for those dealing with caps AND would mitigate this rumor of delays because Apple is yet to strike deals with hundreds of local stations to stream their content.
The alternative is to keep waiting for a new box from Apple until after Eddy finds time to forge a deal with each local broadcaster (last I saw there is well over a thousand of them and that's me being U.S.-centric instead of thinking about the whole world) if bundling them into an iCloud delivery option is the ONLY way Apple wants to do it.
What I described in my other post doesn't even have to be Ad free. It could contain much better targeted ads instead of the wide net approach advertisers now use. But fully on demand would be huge!
Aereo which sends Over the Air (OTA) signals to customers that couldn't receive OTA signals in the first place ? Not coming back.
A DVR that streams recordings of the OTA signals you can receive from your house? Probably coming later this year....
http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/14/tivo-aereo/
Instead of a tweaked TiVo Roamio product (TiVo Roamio OTA. I suspect more casual consumers don't even know what OTA is without explanation. ) it will probably be an update that just doesn't have any CableCard abilities at all from the start and probably the stream engine weaved in as a swap. TiVO would have two DVR product lines; one dedicated to OTA (TiVo Aereo) and another to cable (TiVo Roamio 2 ). ( may or may not continue with the DirecTV variant. ).
TiVo is not going to do the service owned "mini antenna" in location "a" and stream to user in location "b" because they just picked up the trademarks and customers; not the tech and patents. Given it is TiVo the price is probably going to be different too.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't say anything different. However, IMO the HDMI bypass option probably isn't the answer because it would conceptually need multiple inputs to ONE output. For instance, some people have both cable and satt for select channels.
Else, you still have the input switching at the TV. IMO, this desire is best covered with a dedicated Receiver, which is the setup I use now. Multiple sources into the receiver, one HDMI out to the TV.
Maybe a passthrough that receives the one HDMI out of a receiver to an HDMI in on an
TV??? But then TV will need to be smart enough to figure out what is playing unless such information is encoded in the HDMI data stream.----------
I agree fully on demand would be huge- with or without commercials. But it doesn't look like even Apple can deliver that better than they already have. Instead, if recent rumors are true, it looks like Apple is going to roll out a bundle of ad-loaded channels much like a cable company's basic cable. Based on the rumored pricing vs. pricing of select streaming "channels" already available, that's pretty much exactly what I expect.
Ad free would have to make up for the subsidy revenue of the ads, so even 25-30 channels for about $40/month can't possibly do that. If ad-free, it would have to be much more expensive.
So, from rumors, it looks like Apple is assembling a basic cable-like bundle for about $30-$40/month. If it happens to have one's favorite channels, it may be a cheaper option than sticking with whatever one uses now. However, if it really starts eating into a Comcast's revenues, I don't see why they don't make it more expensive by flexing their broadband pricing muscles, and/or bundle the same group of channels with broadband and maybe voice for a cheaper-than-Apple's offering. If one can imagine them doing that, then "the rest" will have to be really something. If "the rest" is software- like a spectacular new kind of UI- why doesn't a Comcast just replicate the software?
I'd love to buy the dream you cast or even the more often slung one of "everything I want, commercial-free" in a package where Apple can get theirs and yet I get to pay a fraction of what I pay now. But that's soooooo unlikely. What has been rumored and priced as rumored seems actually doable. It's far from that al-a-carte dream but it's generally compatible with what would seem to be acceptable from all of the other players in the chain. And Apple needs them much more than they need Apple.
Last edited:
There's only one way to crack television and that's to acquire or create the content. I've been saying this for years now but people just don't seem to get it. Nobody, Apple included, is going to be able to just work deals with content companies to move away from the status quo. There's just no incentive for the content companies to make the kinds of changes that everyone else wants.
The issue is that the current content companies have practically all the negotiating power. Don't believe me? Just consider what happens if your cable company loses a certain channel. If they've lost the channel it's most likely because they couldn't come to an agreement with the content company on price. But when you're missing Nickelodeon you don't get mad at Viacom, you get pissed and put pressure on your cable company (even though they are fighting on both yours and their behalf to keep content costs down).
If Apple wants to disrupt television they absolutely have to own a critical mass of content and they have to be in a position to create more value from the disruption than would be lost by the acquiring of the content. Basically unless Apple wants to start spending big time money to become a mass media corporation then this this idea about disrupting the living room will remain a pipe dream. When I said this 2 years ago Disney was a 100B company (today they are worth 187B). Regardless companies like Disney(187B), Viacom(27B), Time Warner(70B), Dreamworks(2B), Nintendo(10B?), EA (20B), Activision Blizzard(19B), etc are the kinds of companies Apple would need to start acquiring.
The issue is that the current content companies have practically all the negotiating power. Don't believe me? Just consider what happens if your cable company loses a certain channel. If they've lost the channel it's most likely because they couldn't come to an agreement with the content company on price. But when you're missing Nickelodeon you don't get mad at Viacom, you get pissed and put pressure on your cable company (even though they are fighting on both yours and their behalf to keep content costs down).
If Apple wants to disrupt television they absolutely have to own a critical mass of content and they have to be in a position to create more value from the disruption than would be lost by the acquiring of the content. Basically unless Apple wants to start spending big time money to become a mass media corporation then this this idea about disrupting the living room will remain a pipe dream. When I said this 2 years ago Disney was a 100B company (today they are worth 187B). Regardless companies like Disney(187B), Viacom(27B), Time Warner(70B), Dreamworks(2B), Nintendo(10B?), EA (20B), Activision Blizzard(19B), etc are the kinds of companies Apple would need to start acquiring.
Last edited: