CBS Sports and USA NOW Channels Now Available on Apple TV [Update: And More]

[webbuzz]

The CBS Sports has been on my at for a few days. No USA as of yet, does anyone else have it on theirs?

Both were added for me today.

 

[btbeme]

So if the cable subscription is still going to be required...

please give the apple TV, cablecard DVR functionality so I don't have to pay rental fees to my cable company for the DVR/cable boxes. That alone would recoup the cost for the apple tv pretty quickly

There are some patent, licensing, and federal regulatory issues that would need to be addressed here, but that can be implemented (at a cost) or worked around (via non-localized storage, such as the Cloud).

I think one of those options is something Apple would be interested in delivering...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Because of piracy. You can take what I, as a market participant, think is a fair price for your content or not. Doesn't matter to me. I'll watch it either way.


Except unlike iPad and Macbooks, once the content has been made it can be copied and replicated for free, and therefore is amortized much quicker. After the initial cost of making the show, the rest is nearly free. There is a lot of room to cut the cost of TV shows.

And you're right that the publishers want to make more money, not less. However, most of them are short sighted and naively think their choice is status quo or more money. That isn't the choice. The choice is some money or no money. Seems to me, many are idiotically choosing no money.

So we are only interested in shows already in the can? For that we do have Netflix, etc. Or are we interested in the new shows?

I can't talk to the "or I'll pirate it" argument. One who will steal if they can't get the price they want can't be reasoned with on a logical basis. If you are willing to steal it, even an ultimate Apple solution cannot compete with your $0 price.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I don't see why the other players would want "Apple has all the channels you want, at a price lower than any other network". That would only be good for Apple and us consumers. Why do the owners of the content want to enrich Apple by cutting their own throats?

The content owners are currently screwed by Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner. They may either go through those companies, or they can not have customers. Those companies know it, so give the content providers pennies per customer each month. That's why you have ads - it's how the content owners get money.

The distributors, on the other hand, get pure profit in the form of $100 monthly bills from subscribers, in exchange for very little. They spent a lot of money at one time to make the infrastructure, and spend a bit more to maintain the infrastructure.

So Apple would be replacing Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner. They'll take less money than the current distributors do, pass in more money to the content providers, and customers will pay less. They'll get fewer channels, but it'll be the better channels than remain.

 

[Thunderhawks]

None of the players- Apple included- share "our" desire for "everything we want to watch" at a huge discount. None of them want that. That's unique to us consumers. What they all want in any new model is a way to make MORE- not less- money than they make in the "as is" model. Else, why change?

We are the biggest obstacle to getting this al-a-carte, commercial-free dream we so often sling around this concept. Why? Because paramount in that dream is the huge discount we expect it to also deliver. Might as well pine for MacBook Pros for $100 and iPads for $50 because it's pretty much the very same thing. The suppliers of television entertainment want to grow their revenues & profits just like Apple wants to grow their revenue & profits. They can't do that by eating a huge cut to their revenues and killing the huge subsidy revenues that come from commercials... any more than Apple can just discount their products by 70% or more and be just fine.

But every one of these threads fills with these same comments, pointing to Hulu & Netflix as some grand example of how all programming should be available at Netflix-like monthly rates. Even Netflix & Hulu won't be able to stick to those rates forever. As contract renewals come up, they either pay up or lose content (like Netflix lost the whole Starz package). As they have to pay up, they will have to raise their rates and/or tier their offerings. It is inevitable.

Both only work now because the masses have not moved on them. When the masses try to go there, it will end... either by the better (non-original) content getting pinched out of those services OR their prices going up to cover significantly-increasing costs AND/OR by broadband rates getting jacked up for "heavier data users" (like video streamers).

And even Apple can't do anything about some of that, as an Apple replacement would entirely depend on broadband pipes owned by "evil" cable companies their "new model" would conceptually replace.

Stop making sense here.

We want it , we want it now AND we want it FREE!!!

Netflix and Hulu etc. are only as good as your internet connections.

The cable companies supply internet cable , FIOS by Verizon etc. and when the masses move , they will expect faster streaming.

That will bring on higher prices for faster networks.

An ever evolving cycle.

In the end we all will pay whatever they charge.

No cutting any cable or anything.
Just cutting where the programming comes from and maybe they'll let us skip the "Miniatures collection channel" by buying a la carte.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The content owners are currently screwed by Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner. They may either go through those companies, or they can not have customers. Those companies know it, so give the content providers pennies per customer each month. That's why you have ads - it's how the content owners get money.

The distributors, on the other hand, get pure profit in the form of $100 monthly bills from subscribers, in exchange for very little. They spent a lot of money at one time to make the infrastructure, and spend a bit more to maintain the infrastructure.

So Apple would be replacing Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner. They'll take less money than the current distributors do, pass in more money to the content providers, and customers will pay less. They'll get fewer channels, but it'll be the better channels than remain.

Believe what you want. The Comcasts have to publish their revenues & profits. Look it up. If it was "pure profit" they would be the most successful companies in the world. I detest them at least as much as you but making up their profits to fit our arguments doesn't actually make such statements true. In this one, you can actually look it up to see their profits. They are not "pure".

And again, even if Apple chooses to make less money out of their generosity and delivers this amazing package of the best channels for cheap, how do they deliver that cableTV replacement to us? Through who's broadband pipes? In my own case, the choice would be Comcast or AT&T (I'm lucky to have 2 choices, many don't). What will Comcast & AT&T do if Apple takes their cableTV business- just let them have it? Of course not! They'll just make up the difference in broadband prices for "heavier bandwidth users". So we'll pay more either way. This thinking only works if we mentally lock the cost of broadband and have the cable companies just let Apple take that business. It falls apart as soon as one thinks through the dependencies of Apple's replacement (broadband being a huge one).

 

[V.K.]

Apple TV is so desperately in need of an overhaul. This system of just having more and more channels clutter up the home screen with no real organization options aside from hiding unused channels has long outlived its usefulness. I really hope the rumors of a revamped Apple TV with a true App Store that might actually give me some control over the channels that show up on my device are finally going to turn out to be true this year. I've been disappointed too many years running to get my hopes up though...

yes, the ATV UI has to be overhauled. but it does look like it's coming soon.
apart from the clutter they need to do something about content discovery and channel switching. Cable TV UI is horrible but in terms of changing channels it's miles ahead of ATV. right now the number of clicks and scrolls needed to get from something inside one app to something in another is beyond absurd.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Stop making sense here.

Sorry, I keep forgetting. Horray for Apple. I can't wait to get everything I could possibly want, commercial free, for nearly nothing. Apple can do it. They're so innovative!

And I hope this adds billions to their revenue too! Who pays that revenue if we pay nearly nothing? Well get those greedy cable companies to pay Apple or maybe those greedy content creators or the companies that throw all that money into commercials that we don't want to have to watch anymore. I don't care. Just give me everything for nearly nothing, make sure Apple profits handsomely, and magic- instead of consumer revenue- can keep all my favorite shows and sports coming.

 

[arbogast777]

Dear Apple: This only helps if we can get the content without an existing cable subscription.

I strongly disagree with this.

There has been an assumption that all streaming devices exist to aid in cord cutting. A lot of people might use it for that, but that is not the sole reason they exist.

I have cable and yet find these apps which require a cable subscription extremely useful. It gives me a better interface and on demand content.

You have to get out of this way of thinking that the way you use a particular device is the way everybody uses it.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This may be difficult for members of the Entitlement Generation to understand, but in the real world the best solution sometimes takes time to deliver.

This is nothing like the music industry, which desperately needed a way to distribute music legally so as to present a solution to illegal downloads and sharing. Remember, the iTunes Store launched with a handful or distributors and only 200k songs protected by a proprietary DRM. It grew over time. Artists, distributors, etc held out for "better terms" - but sooner or later, most of them saw the writing on the wall. And then the industry as a whole shifted as a necessity.

Broadcast content is a lot different. To your point, there are already a myriad ways that content providers have slowly allowed their media to be shown and distributed via non-traditional methods. But, again, that is a very incomplete portfolio, a complex way of doing it (including DRM schemes), and in most cases the licensing is temporary (just ask Netflix).

The iTunes Store is an example the content providers are using AGAINST Apple - they feel that, like the music industry, there is too much to lose and not enough gain. See, when you own all the water, it really doesn't matter that the best civil engineers and plumbers have built all the infrastructure needed to plumb a city - you will release the water only when you are good and ready, and pretty much only on your own terms.

The biggest threat to the traditional industry is the current rise of internally-developed content that Netflix, etc are starting to produce. But that is a tiny blip on the radar.

Crawl, walk, run. Apple and other companies will get the content providers to play ball. But you don't get there by poking a stick in their eye. You do it the way the iTunes Store developed - use the content provider rules, show them that it really doesn't work, and then provide a better option. And then the industry will shift. But only when they are good and ready.

OTA channels exist, and are required to be free. Telecommunications Act of 1996, and earlier. I can record those signals, and do with them whatever I please within my own household for personal use. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Technology exists today, and has existed for years, that allows me to record OTA signals and stream them within my private network. Tablo has made an AppleTV app and has asked Apple to include it in their AppleTV. Apple has refused. There is no obligation to any content providers, there is no bargaining chips the content providers hold here. It is Apple and Apple alone that has decided not to allow this.

This is an entitlement generation issue, nor a traditional approach versus new-age approach issue. It is very simply an implementation issue.

In terms of whether 2015 is the right time for this or not, you bring up the MP3 piracy / iTunes store example but I don't think you understand the lessons learned from it. The book industry learned. They say what was happening to music, they say the writing on the wall, and they embraced technology, internet distribution, and lower pricing. Now we have amazing ereaders, digital public libraries, Kindle Unlimited, and audible. Consuming literature has never been more accessible, or more affordable. More kids are reading than in the 80s or 90s. And the industry is more profitable than it was back then too. It was a win-win-win for everyone involved (a few ugly legal spats excluded, but that happens in ever industry). The tv and movie industries did not learn the MP3 lesson, and they are paying the same price that the music industry paid in the 90s and 00s.

Also, the analogy to water is silly. Digital content is unlike anything physical, and cannot be analogized to anything physical. As the entitlement generation frequently hears, whatever you post on the internet is there forever. The same applies to content anywhere. Once it's out, it's out. Whether the content owner accept my money for it or not is up to them; but it's out there regardless.

Also, they say one should respect their elders. I do my best. But many should also be reminded to not be condescending to their younger. It helps no one.

 

[arbogast777]

Cable TV UI is horrible but in terms of changing channels it's miles ahead of ATV. right now the number of clicks and scrolls needed to get from something inside one app to something in another is beyond absurd.

I've always thought Apple TV needed to do something like 1 click to open an app or 2 clicks to begin playing the app (either what is being shown live or in the case of something like Netflix maybe begin playing the last thing you were watching).

 

[FieldingMellish]

All these apps require a subscription. Such bull dinkie. More to put on my hidden list.

 

[oneMadRssn]

So we are only interested in shows already in the can? For that we do have Netflix, etc. Or are we interested in the new shows?

I can't talk to the "or I'll pirate it" argument. One who will steal if they can't get the price they want can't be reasoned with on a logical basis. If you are willing to steal it, even an ultimate Apple solution cannot compete with your $0 price.

I think I read it from an interview with a Valve executive, but I doubt this is his theory alone. Either way, the jist was that businesses that sell digital content must compete with piracy as if it were a competitor, they must not fight it. Today's pirates must be seen as an under-served potential customers.

How does once compete? By making access as friction-less as possible, adding value, and charging fair prices of course! In Gaming, Steam added a lot of value and made prices sane; I know many former pirates who buy games today. Today, this independent small-studio gaming industry is thriving (something that was not possible before) In music, I know many former pirates who happily pay for Spotify, Rdio, or one of the other services. I wouldn't say the industry is healthy, but they did screw their fans pretty badly in the 90s and early 00s, so they got what they deserved. I also know a few people who used to pirate HBO shows but now pay for HBONow; although there is no formal data on this, TorrentFreak has noticed a correlation between low-torrent numbers and shows and movies available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Who says Pirates aren't willing to pay? They just aren't willing to be gouged.

Piracy should be viewed as the worst-case alternative, as the bare minimum. If using your service is more effort than piracy, or if you charge so much that I question the value, then of course piracy will be what I turn to. If using your service is a pleasure and I have a good customer experience, and I see value in what I pay for, then why bother pirating?

Netflix has some fantastic new shows and not just stuff that's in the can, by the way, which I'm sure you've noticed.

 

[Elbon]

I really hope these rumors about the $30/$40 Apple TV service aren't accurate. I'm not interested in paying for any kind of channel bundle, regardless of who is offering it. I'm happy with Netflix and HBO Now - everything else, I get OTA for free via TiVo. I'd love to be able to watch everything via Apple TV, but I'm not willing to pay a premium for it.

 

[bandrews]

I pity you folks in the US with your messed up TV services. The various subscription models and multitude of networks will be what stops a major global revolution in the TV industry. I tried getting my head around it but there's just way too many options. Outside the standard digital channels we get in the UK with the licence fee (and their catchup services) we can dip in and out of Netflix, Amazon and NowTV on a PAYG basis to get pretty much any major show in the world for about £6-7 a month per service, no contract. I just dip in and out to watch House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Vikings or whatever else piques my interest. Would be great to have all shows combined in one service but on the LG WebOS TV, the interface is so much slicker than the ATV offering.

And that's in the middle of nowhere with a shoddy broadband connection.

The problem with TV is the same as the problem Apply Pay and iTunes radio had - USA may be Apple's biggest market but unless you can take it international, it will never be a massive success. The rebranded beats will go the same way too unless they get global deals with the labels.

 

[alent1234]

I pity you folks in the US with your messed up TV services. The various subscription models and multitude of networks will be what stops a major global revolution in the TV industry. I tried getting my head around it but there's just way too many options. Outside the standard digital channels we get in the UK with the licence fee (and their catchup services) we can dip in and out of Netflix, Amazon and NowTV on a PAYG basis to get pretty much any major show in the world for about £6-7 a month per service, no contract. I just dip in and out to watch House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Vikings or whatever else piques my interest. Would be great to have all shows combined in one service but on the LG WebOS TV, the interface is so much slicker than the ATV offering.

And that's in the middle of nowhere with a shoddy broadband connection.

The problem with TV is the same as the problem Apply Pay and iTunes radio had - USA may be Apple's biggest market but unless you can take it international, it will never be a massive success. The rebranded beats will go the same way too unless they get global deals with the labels.

in the USA you can buy a TV without the idiotic license fee

 

[BruiserBear]

Because of piracy. You can take what I, as a market participant, think is a fair price for your content or not. Doesn't matter to me. I'll watch it either way.


Except unlike iPad and Macbooks, once the content has been made it can be copied and replicated for free, and therefore is amortized much quicker. After the initial cost of making the show, the rest is nearly free. There is a lot of room to cut the cost of TV shows.

And you're right that the publishers want to make more money, not less. However, most of them are short sighted and naively think their choice is status quo or more money. That isn't the choice. The choice is some money or no money. Seems to me, many are idiotically choosing no money.

This post is the very definition of entitlement.

"Make it cheap as dirt, or I'll pirate it".

 

[V.K.]

I've always thought Apple TV needed to do something like 1 click to open an app or 2 clicks to begin playing the app (either what is being shown live or in the case of something like Netflix maybe begin playing the last thing you were watching).

yes, something like what you suggest with quick resume would certainly be helpful. a home button like in ios would be good too. but in general the problem of streamlining navigation is very tricky given the basic structure of completely separate apps each doing their own thing with their own navigation systems. I don't how it can be done well but I very much hope Apple is thinking hard about this. it will be a must for the new ATV to be a good product.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This post is the very definition of entitlement.

"Make it cheap as dirt, or I'll pirate it".

So you prefer, "gouge the prices as high as possible, all reasonableness be damned, because the fools have no other choice"?

Also, I said "fair price." Where did you get "cheap as dirt" from? Or is that what you think is fair?

 

[JAT]

Do we see any evidence of that anywhere? CBS which we might think of as "free*" (just put up an antenna) wants their al-a-carte steaming channel to cost $6/month. So won't ABC, NBC, FOX and maybe CW expect at least as much? If so, theres $30/month for just the "big 5" that are conceptually viewed as free* now. HBO Now just rolled out at $15. I'd expect ESPN to be up there too.

I keep reminding you in these threads. Hulu Plus is $8/month for ABC, NBC, and FOX alacarte streaming. Has existed for years, already. (4.5 years, according to wiki) Why do you keep posting as if there is no such thing? CBS's "channel" is intended to compete with Hulu, I have no doubt. CBS is last to streaming, not first.

One thing is for sure in my mind. Every new story about TV channels just proves that Steve did NOT actually "crack" TV. Which makes sense, because it has too many players for any one company to turn it on its ear.

 

[bandrews]

in the USA you can buy a TV without the idiotic license fee

And what channels do you get for that? Gets you 50 channels including HD in the UK (some considerably better than others).

In the UK you can still buy a TV and watch services like Netflix or any of the catchup services. You only need to be covered by a valid TV Licence "if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast".

Oh, and it's a whole £145.50 per year. What do you realistically get for that in the states?

 

[The Barron]

PLEASE, Apple, Clean up the Apple TV Screen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDevil7334
Apple TV is so desperately in need of an overhaul. This system of just having more and more channels clutter up the home screen with no real organization options aside from hiding unused channels has long outlived its usefulness.
The Apple TV has so much crap on the home screen now it's almost as crappy and cluttered as my Xfinity box. I don't get how this improves things.

The Apple TV has so much crap on the home screen now it's almost as crappy and cluttered as my Xfinity box. I don't get how this improves things.

I have to agree with previous posters here in that I do like my Apple TV and will definitely purchase the new & hopefully highly improved model after the WWDC in early June, IF there's a HUGE improvement in the channel arrangement & the ability to hide all the channels I will never view.

PLEASE, get this correct prior to release.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Oh, and it's a whole £145.50 per year. What do you realistically get for that in the states?

We get about a about 3 months of several dozen channels (basic cable) which are 50% commercials, and the remaining 50% is littered with product placement.

 

[MarkNY]

Question

Supposedly, the new Apple TV over the top subscription service will stream your local network affiliates. I'm not sure how they're going to be able to do this. Won't they have to reach an agreement with every affiliate in every single market? Time-warner hasn't been able to do that with their TWC TV. How is Apple going to do it? Seems like a herculean task. You can't just reach an agreement with say, CBS, you have to reach an agreement with all of their affiliates, as far as I know...

 

[carrrrrlos]

So ready to ditch DirecTV. What’s next? Apple as my ISP?