Dude give it up already. If you think it's a hoax, good for you. You've made it pretty clear. I stand by my original point that the tvOS app store is open to any developer out there. So even if this was a hoax, that doesn't mean this isn't going to at some point happen.
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.
Sling TV App Briefly Appears in Apple TV App Store, Hinting at Upcoming Launch [Update: Hoax]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some (unfortunately not all yet) allow you to rewatch everything that has aired in the last few days. Recently the Roku app has added the ability to watch old episodes commercial free. I think they list the channels that support this online.
When you buy movies from iTunes you can also download them to your iPad w/out need for network connection.
And Apple has never denied an app on the App Store that competed against one of their own offerings?
Sling is a bad offer with only one device able to stream at a time. So every Apple TV in my house needs a subscription? F U, I may as well get DirectTV for that price!
Oh it has, for sure. But the fact that Apple doesn't currently have a streaming service (and it sounds like one is quite a ways off)...means they have no argument to deny this here. Unless it goes against some terms. It'd be like them denying Hulu, because there are TV shows on that app.
Sony Playstation VUE allows up to three devices simultaneously for the same price. Not bad. It also has cloud based DVR.
The Sling CEO said at CES this year they were going to be available on more platforms. They are on a lot already so this is the most logical with the install base of Apple TV. It works for Apple to now they finally have live tv to offer. I am sure DIRECTV streaming will be on appletv this fall probably at launch. I just need a vudu or flixster app for my UV library and I will move the roku 3 to another room.
Seriously? It is a hoax. I made the pictures.
[doublepost=1456964355][/doublepost]
I made the pictures on photoshop.
Attachments
Exactly. And that also leads into why true "a la carte" channels will probably never happen.
Right now the channels get a ton of revenue from every cable subscriber... all 100 million of them in the US... because of advertising.
But if people got to pick-n-choose certain channels... those individual channels wouldn't make nearly as much money due to the smaller amount of advertising.
So the content providers would have to start charging $10 a month or something... per channel... just to make up for it. And no one would like that.
My whole point was... if we're gonna do "TV on the Internet"... let's do something different.
Sling TV is simply a bundle of live linear channels not dissimilar from what you can already get from the cable company. It's doing the same thing... but with a different delivery mechanism.
But I think live linear programming is antiquated today. In a world where we can listen to almost any song imaginable at any time... having to wait until 8pm on a Thursday to watch a TV show is silly.
I'd love to see something new. Pay one price and get access to any TV show on-demand. That's the dream.
But you're right... it would probably cost a fortune if the content owners want to make the same money they make right now with live channels.
The establishment is too strong right now. The content providers are still getting most of their income from traditional live cable TV. And it will be a long time before that dries up.
Last edited:
About as good a chance as Amazon Fire TV having iTunes.
[doublepost=1456969053][/doublepost]
Cable providers like Comcast make an exceptional profit on their set top boxes. No incentive for either content providers or delivery companies supporting streaming, except for fringe backfill opportunities.
Last edited:
What none of them realize is consumers are willing to pay more for quality. If the content offerings and hardware were top shelf, people would gladly shell out more than they do now. They want quality.... not the current crappy STBs and hours of mind numbing programmes.
That's not the case at all. They realize all too well what the vast majority of consumers want: sports, reality tv, cable series', and procedural crime dramas. The numbers back my assertion. Quality content and hardware? Quality is a vague subjective term that could mean anything. Who's judging this quality of content? Me? You? npmacuser5? What's quality hardware? A $150 plastic puck? A $35 dongle? What about a $400 gaming/entertainment console? Speaking in generalities is okay until the time comes to do something actionable to facilitate change.
The TV situation is very similar to the App Store situation. People in forums like these bemoan the ascendancy of freemium. They want more games to be a one time fee, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming revenue is generated by freemiums. Like npmacuser5 said above, there's no incentive to change because what they're doing now works well. As of yet, no one has come up with a viable plan to make cord cutting a worthwhile endeavor for content creators.
Channels suck.They are an old-fashioned idea stuck in the days of linear scheduled television.
Even if you could purchase certain channels... they still broadcast one show at a time... literally AT a certain time.
We're in an on-demand world now. Wouldn't it be better to subscribe to a service that let you watch the "shows" you wanted to watch? Whenever you want?
I understand the concept of purchasing individual channels... but those channels will still broadcast stuff you won't want... and they broadcast while you're at work, or asleep, etc.
It doesn't seem like you would be gaining much.
Good point, even on channels I like there are very few actual shows that I would watch. I would like the ability to watch shows in real time (as they are being shown to cable subscribers) rather than having to wait until the following day to watch them. That way I wouldn't have to worry about hearing spoilers on the radio or at work before I have a chance to watch the show. However, one of the things I really like about buying a season of something (as opposed to watching cable) is that the commercials are automatically gone and I don't have to fast forward through them.
Ok reality tv as it has become today was thrust upon us because of a writer's strike. They are a cancer that needs to be killed and nuked from orbit. The STBs offered today from pay tv operators are woefully slow. And the UI for most of them are equally as bad. Do you think if the market was opened to all to create STBs, we wouldn't have better options?
Let's not forget that reality shows are often much cheaper to produce than scripted shows. That's why they keep getting made.
Instead of paying the cast of "Everybody Loves Raymond" a couple million dollars EACH EPISODE... they can make ENTIRE SEASONS of reality shows for the same or less money. (and plenty of people watch reality shows... even if they're trash!)
The threat of a 2001 writer's strike might have helped start the reality trend... but economics continued it.
Last edited:
This still made my decision to sell the ATV4 and get a Roku 4 and go platform agnostic a good one, apple is just dragging their feet making a case for app developers to get them to create apps for the device, there is no reason to this point their is no vudu app, no sling app, no starz app , no encore app and on and on.
Funny you should mention this. Yesterday they announced that along with ESPN being added, they're dropping the price of every tier by $10 a month. So add content, cut costs? That's even better now. $40 to start at the basic, with locals.
This is yuuuuuuge!
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2016...laystation-vue-reduced-prices-start-at-39-99/
Now, I just need an app for the ATV4.
Haha... yes... live TV is essential for sports.
But for everything else... fixed schedules for already-produced content is silly.