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.
CBS Sports and USA NOW Channels Now Available on Apple TV [Update: And More]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dear John,
Unless the entire TV model changes, Apple will not be able to give you what you dream of.
You are wrong. After seeing what happened to the music industry after apple stong armed them, the TV/movie/cable industry made strides to make NO ONE would do the same to their cash cow.
Channels require a cable subscription because they hold all the cards and told Apple accept it or GTFO.
How am I wrong? What law or license makes it so that Apple can't include a Tablo App on the AppleTV? Tablo has nothing to do with any TV/movie/cable industry player. What about Amazon Prime Video? I'm not asking Apple to invent new apps or new technology. I'm asking Apple to allow apps that already exist and work very well on competing devices. If Roku can have it, if Amazon Fire TV can have it, and the developer wants Apple to have it, then there is no reason Apple can't have it either.
Wait for apple to release an all you can eat movie and TV iTunes package similar to Netflix.
Now that would plow down the competition.
I'd say 50/month and I'm in. They have nearly every tv and movie out with new releases.
Game changer.
Now that would plow down the competition.
I'd say 50/month and I'm in. They have nearly every tv and movie out with new releases.
Game changer.
First off everything on the current Apple TV are not apps at all. That is why Apple can add more content and it doesn't use memory.
If/when Apple revamps the Apple TV OS maybe it will include a way for apps to be created for it. That way Amazon, Tablonor whomever can give you what you need. Also there are those who do not want to support Apple TV.
If you didn't notice, Roku, Chromecast and Fire TV also have a lot of channels that require a TV subscription. It is 100% the providers. They cut deals with satellite and cable companies on a per subscriber basis. They are not going to give their products away for free. ATV, Roku, Fire TV is just an outlet.
And if you go the simple.tv website you will see that they stream to ATV, Roku, Chromecast, Web and Plex. So maybe simple.tv is the problem here?
If I was developing my own streaming service as Apple is, I'm not so sure I'd have the competition directly on my device such as ATV.
Before I got my ATV I looked at the other options. I knew that Roku offered more apps and that most required a subscription. I didn't complain as to why one had more apps than the other. I still purchased the ATV.
Apple has their business model. Unless you are doing the negotiating you have no clue how complex licensing issues are. In fact, they are extremely complex.
IF you get Sling TV you only get limited viewing on ESPN's app (no matter the device). I get more channels streamed on the app as a DirecTV sub than someone who gets SlingTV. But somehow you will blame Apple.
Again, not Apple. It is the channels themselves. Look at Roku and the other similar products. I'll repeat from above: They cut deals with satellite and cable companies on a per subscriber basis. They are not going to give away their product for free. How fair is it that satellite/cable subscribers pay for ESPN, CNN NBCSN, CBS Sports and all someone has to do by an ATV or Roku and get it for free?
Since you seem to think it is not complex to negotiate than why don't you develop your own streaming device? Bet you will get a new appreciation for licensing issues.
Final (and most important) point, if you feel as though ATV is doing things intentionally than go get a Roku or Chromecast or ????????
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. You cannot steal something enough to make it legal. You can't afford HBO? You don't "want" to pay for it? That doesn't give you the right to steal it by downloading from Pirate Bay.
OTA channels are indeed free. That is different than what is broadcast over them, and that content is NOT free (with a very few exceptions). Not even close. And while you are OK to do with them what you wish, you may NOT (again, with few exceptions) use those recordings, etc for some things without consent or payment. Personal use - in many cases - is typically OK. But not otherwise, or you are breaking the law.
Seems to me there has been a real loss of values these last two decades. Just because it it "out there" and can be easily duplicated, that does not mean that it SHOULD be nor that it is legal to do so. Actors, producers, writers, owners, etc have rights. You, as a consumer, do NOT have the right to steal that content. End of discussion on that issue. And if you feel you do, you simply were not raised right.
It IS an implementation issue. The content industry will grow new models to make money while making shows. But that does not mean Apple nor anyone else will be able to force them to do so.
Am I the only one who is happy with the current ATV? 
The channels are free, and if you don't like them, Apple let you hide them from the screen. I also love the UI, it is simple and to the point. Until Apple decide to redesign its UI which will bring another plethora of problems, I don't have anything to complain about the current one.
The channels are free, and if you don't like them, Apple let you hide them from the screen. I also love the UI, it is simple and to the point. Until Apple decide to redesign its UI which will bring another plethora of problems, I don't have anything to complain about the current one.
Hooks. But they only exist to staunch the bleeding of their subscriber bases to Netflix.
Have you always been this angry, or has it come with age?
I think we've muddled two things in our back and forth.
As for OTA, I'm upset that Apple has refused to allow a legitimate company that allows one to watch their own personal recordings of OTA conten; where the users want it and the developer has it ready to go. Indeed, the whole process where Apple deems one app worthy of AppleTV and another not reeks of impropriety.
As for pirating non-OTA content, I think you're again missing the point. We can talk past each other all day long about morals, law, right and wrong, being raised right, etc. That is a philosophical discussion for another time. The modern day REALITY is that is exists, it happens, it will continue to happen, every effort to legislate, litigate, or educate the problem away has been a failure at best and exacerbated the situation at worst. The ONLY thing that has worked to reduce piracy is making the content available online, with less silly usage restrictions, and for a fair and reasonable price. When I say it's piracy or give consumers what they want, that is not a threat. It's a business reality.
One thing we agree on is that Apple will not be able to force the industry to change. However, piracy might. It punished music for rejecting the digital revolution, and caused it to change. The fear of it caused great and beneficial change in the book industry. It's time for the movie and tv industries to decide. Do they want to end up like Tower Records?
Am I the only one who is happy with the current ATV?
I'm happy with it insofar that the podcasts app and AirPlay work so well. That's really all it's useful to me for. Maybe I'll use Netflix again someday, I've just been too lazy to proxy a VPN connection.
----------
I don't see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. And I'd be onboard, but maybe not for $50 - not without upgrades to their CDN anyway. One thing I don't like about
is a 1GB update taking 20 mins to download. I can get the same size file from other, well known software providers who have vast CDNs in around 5 mins. Without a subscription.
Last edited:
Now that's what I'm talking about. It's why I pay for Netflix and Hulu as a cord cutter since 2008
You completely glossed over my statements to you which pretty much explained a lot.
Show me the proof that Apple "REFUSED" to allow a legitimate company?
Just because a company says that Apple won't allow it doesn't mean that is entirely the case. That is just one side to the problem. Apple has their standards and if any company doesn't meet them, then no deal. Just because they are your personal recordings, there are still streaming rights involved. This is whole lot more complicated than just we have the product lets on ATV.
I'll give you a great example on a larger scale. I pay for ESPN on Directv. By your account I should be able to watch on the WatchESPN app right? Nope, there are streaming rights involved. Those rights didn't get resolved until the old contract expired and the two companies could negotiate. As of February 19 DTV subs could watch ESPN on ATV or any other device.
Moral of the story, there is way more involved than you will ever know. Just hearing one side doesn't mean Apple is the bad guy.
Just because it is available online doesn't meant there aren't contracts negotiated. There is still intellectual properties involved.
We must be talking past eachother. I record an OTA broadcast, it's on my personal hard drive, and I can watch it on my computer, on my iPhone, and on my iPad. All of this is legal, and there are no ip rights are being infringed. None, totally kosher. There is no reason Apple shouldn't also allow this developer to put an icon on the AppleTV. No contracts, no licenses, no ip rights are involved in this scenario, again. This isn't a public broadcast like in your watchESPN example.
Also, please don't assume this is something I don't know. IP happens to be my career.
As for proof, I don't think it's necessary. Apple's refusal to allow developers to submit apps, while accepting apps from others peicemeal, has been widely publicized on many sites including the one we are on now. To bring the discussiong back, i sincerely hope Apple decides to make a proper app store for the AppleTV, with proper guidelines and requirments, instead of the draconian and arbitrary system in place today.
On that note, I wish you goodnight.
What a mess
AppleTV is a complete mess. Each new "channel" only makes a bad interface worse.
If I want to find a movie, there is no way to search for a specific movie other than open each of the separate channels and browse/search. Each channel is a walled off garden that can't see content anywhere else.
The single best new feature they can add is a comprehensive universal search capability.
When I click an icon on the home screen that says "movies" I want to see ALL the movies I can watch, no matter if they are located on HBO, AMC, NBC, etc.
How about "Smart" Channels in the new AppleTV. I want to make a Football home screen icon. I want it to open up and show me nothing but football. All the games -- live and recorded -- from ESPN, FoxSports, CBS Sports, NFL, etc. I want to see a list of highlights, football commentary, etc.
This would be possible if Apple were to simply create an API that requires content providers to tag all their content with keywords that could be accessed system wide.
As it stands now, I prefer the interface of my TiVo over the AppleTV by a wide margin.
AppleTV is a complete mess. Each new "channel" only makes a bad interface worse.
If I want to find a movie, there is no way to search for a specific movie other than open each of the separate channels and browse/search. Each channel is a walled off garden that can't see content anywhere else.
The single best new feature they can add is a comprehensive universal search capability.
When I click an icon on the home screen that says "movies" I want to see ALL the movies I can watch, no matter if they are located on HBO, AMC, NBC, etc.
How about "Smart" Channels in the new AppleTV. I want to make a Football home screen icon. I want it to open up and show me nothing but football. All the games -- live and recorded -- from ESPN, FoxSports, CBS Sports, NFL, etc. I want to see a list of highlights, football commentary, etc.
This would be possible if Apple were to simply create an API that requires content providers to tag all their content with keywords that could be accessed system wide.
As it stands now, I prefer the interface of my TiVo over the AppleTV by a wide margin.
Last edited:
Because currently it is the only way to get content from those networks. Until the TV industry changes, this is it.
I don't why Apple doesn't put the Tablo on ATV. It is true that Apple has strict guidelines and when Tablo adheres to them, they will be on. Also, why not wait until Apples makes the expected announcement next month on ATV4? You may be pleasantly surprised. There is a "rumor" of an app store
But really what fired me up was when you claimed that Apple requires channels to only be viewed with a satellite/cable subscription. It is required by the channels themselves. No device manufacturer puts on the restriction. Not Roku, ATV, Chromecast, FireTV, iPad, droid web..etc.
Exactly! It's nice that new "channels" are being added, but it's a pain that they require a cable subscription. Apple is really missing the mark on TV as regards cord-cutting with these cable-dependent "channels". It would be great if they added channels that don't require a cable subscription, like Amazon Prime.
AGAIN, the channels themselves require a satellite/cable subscription. All devices, like ATV or Roku have the same requirements.
I really hope to be pleasantly surprised. Apply will have no bigger fan and cheerleader of the AppleTV platform than me if that happens.
I'm not claiming that Apple directly requires that channels to only be viewed with a satellite/cable subscription. I'm saying Apple's choices in which "channels" they allow onto the AppleTV make it a distinction without a difference. Imagine if your local car dealership's stock of cars was 90% red, and the past months of new cars they received were 100% red. They're not, strictly speaking, requiring that all cars sold must be red, but the effect is the same as if they were requiring it. At the very least, it can be said that Apple is endorsing the "channels" that require a cable/satellite subscription.