Apple TV update adds channels for Vevo, Disney, Weather & Smithsonian

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 119
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Vevo works great
    Disney apps suck anyway- so even if you don't have cable you aren't missing out- very very few shows and even the ones they have are just random episodes. (Season 3 phoneas and ferb episodes 8-11, season 4 episodes 8 and 9 only) for example
    The weather channel is very nice- but kind of pointless when you have your phone- a radar would've been incredible- or for it to be linked with the home screen as a 5 day forecast- but it's just a normal app.
    Didn't try smithsonian.

    I, too, would like amazon prime. And I would also like show time (or allow them app to AirPlay). Outside of that- I look forward to iTunes radio w/ my iTunes Match. And I long for a refresh- just to see what they do. There really are a half dozen different ways they could go with this "hobby".
  • Reply 102 of 119
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,457member
    That puzzles me, mine have no issues playing 1080p and that's true even if my wife is also watching another film on another Apple TV in 1080p at the same time. I'm using FiOS 75/50 and Apple Time Capsule Router going via HDMI to 60" Sharp Aquos and Sony TVs. I don't get rez dropping, stutter, lag or audio sync issues ever these days (I have seen all of those years ago on earlier hardware). I can also use Airplay or Air Parrot to throw 1080p .mkv video at them from various MacBook Pros without any hassle. Games from iPad likewise although I have no idea what their rez is.

    What is your config?

    I do reckon we are in for a leap in tech spec on new Apple TVs soon anyway ....

    10Mbps compressed != 40Mbps compressed. I have no doubt that iTunes downloads are catered to the horsepower that is available on the least of the platforms available. The current AppleTV has a lesser CPU than last year's iPad. And the post I replied to stated that AppleTV was going to compete directly with consoles like the PS4. My opinion differs as the current can't compete with the PS3.
  • Reply 103 of 119
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


     


    unbiased???? The BBC is terribly biased. They just hide it well. It's not what they say, so much as what they don't say. IMO it's the scummiest news org after AlJazeera and Russia Today.



     


    This is just a ridiculous thing to say.  BBC is one of the best news organisations in the world.  Their website consistently won awards to that effect for years although I'm not sure if it has lately or not.  


     


    And what makes Al Jazeera "scummy" BTW?  Just because you don't agree with it?  It's one of the best and most consistent news sources in the middle east and one of the least biased news sources period.  

  • Reply 104 of 119
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post



    Vevo works great ...


     


    Vevo is the only app in this "update" that shows in Canada, and a bigger pile of suckage I couldn't imagine.  


     


    Endless Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber videos with a  bit of Gaga thrown in does not a "channel" make IMO.  


    The only sort of good videos they have (Daft Punk, Calvin Harris etc.), are partial songs (adverts basically). 

  • Reply 105 of 119
    no directv
  • Reply 106 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by redefiler View Post


     


    They are ALL "entertainment channels".  Televised journalism is the 7 eleven hot dog of news meats.  Singling out Fox, is to ignore that what you're eating is a parasite infested, pseudo-meat log that's got the clerk's hair, skin flakes and shoe print baked into the surface. 


     


    You can't get good journalism in 30second to 5 minute televised bursts, neither can you get it from 200-300 word articles in daily periodicals (also known as newspapers).  These mediums have always been quick, low quality, rash and shoddy outlets for journalism, they are basically little more than simplistic headline feedbags strapped to the faces of the lazy.  The commercials themselves are more reliable sources of fact and truth.


     


    There's no intellectual upside of moral superiority to finding fault with one channel vs another.  It's just a symptom of hysterical political wonkery, where the eternal slap fight between team D and R is supposed to be the primary reason for all existence.  


     


    Let's also table this TV "science" nonsense, it's sciencish entertainment fodder at best.  If you're science diet is TV reporting, then you're feeding your brain garbage.  Doesn't matter if its BBC, NBC, Fox or whoever.  Watching TV does not make you smart.  Learning takes real effort (as in "work") not sitting on your couch wind-bagging about the relative "truth" of daily televised entertainment.



    I dont agree with some of your points.


    I would not describe some newspapers or news sites or news TV as entertainment. They neither amuse me, nor do they provide me with enjoyment. The possible use of chemical weapons on some of the people in Syria is certainly none of these.


    Its too bad that you think that there is NO good journalism in 30 sec or 5 minute televised bursts, as you say. Given so many reporters have lost their lives trying to bring us this news.


    Who said anything about an intellectual upside. Some news channels are more biased than others. Some science storys reported on TV NEWS provide insight, no one is suggesting that any science based article is worthy of 'peer' review. Im an Engineer, and I got me a couple of degrees, electronics and Physics, but quite often a science story provides me with knowledge i never had.


    "Watching TV does not make you smart"  I agree mostly - it can provide knowledge, not really increase your IQ. However, the brain is muscle (sort of) and getting it to think about things has quite a lot, and quite frequently has been shown to improve synaptic response, and thus, i would infer, have the potential to increase ones"IQ"? 


    every couple of weeks I drive about 2 hours with my Wife and youngest son (almost 16) SInce my wife quickly falls asleep during the journey, my son and I engage in conversations about all sorts. REcently it was about time, and quasars, atomic clocks etc. He knew more than I had forgotten, some of which was provided by spending time learning, and almost ALL of which was started because he saw a news article on the BBC NEWS site about a new, more stable clock. So perhaps indirectly, that news provided hime with a good deal of knowledge,.


    Without newspapers how would we have won the second world war, or decided that men ( and women) of color had equal rights in the USA?


    I heartily agree that learning takes real effort. But honestly, i spend that effort learning things i need (and want) to be good at (mostly engineering related). Many of us hardly have time, or the energy to spend significant time learning about poverty in India, or the killing and torturing of children in some african countries, because they 'are' witches.

  • Reply 107 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    And what makes Al Jazeera "scummy" BTW?  Just because you don't agree with it?  It's one of the best and most consistent news sources in the middle east and one of the least biased news sources period.  



     


    Al Jazeera has or at least had a reputation as Jihad TV or something similar.  Basically, there were so many videos from terrorists that were airing on the channel, especially in 2001-2003ish that it gained that reputation.  I am aware that it's coverage on Egypt was lauded and everything, I am not talking about that, or other stories where it's coverage was lauded.  I am addressing the above quote directly, nothing more.

  • Reply 108 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I wasn't the one making the initial comment about the BBC being as far left (I won't repeat the diatribe again) as was asserted.


     


    Apparently, the BBC seems "far left" to some folks but seems "centrist" to you.  To me, this is a subjective argument of relative positions, but your other comment seemed to imply to the other poster: "the BBC isn't biased... you are".  That's the message I got, anyway.


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    My comment stands in the context of that post and one cannot take a small part of what I said, without with the context and make sense of it.


     


     


    Well, I thought your comment was a bit on the snide side, and deserved to be scrutinized.  So I proposed another point of view.  And your response supported it...


     


    Bingo.  So we are in violent agreement then.



    I'd rather listen to several points of view and then make a decision based on the presented evidence. As stated in several earlier posts in this discussion one of the big problems these days is how much information is being left out of the news in order to skew it in a particular direction. We're not talking about the talking heads like Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly. I'm referring to the folks that are suppose to be presenting the "where, when, and how" news. That sort of news presentation is all but gone from the airways. Remember when HLN was Headline News and would provide a decent recap of the days events in 30 minutes instead of the dark paranoia of Nancy Grace?


     


    As to my earlier point regarding Fox and the other news sources I want to re-interate that I don't think ANY of them are particularly good. Not because they have a bias but rather because they withhold information which is inconvenient to their goals. Often their goals-both left and right-are in sync with one another and we as viewers suffer. I don't think it's a "let's take over the world" sort of plot to withhold information but rather a desire to keep people watching their programming and feeling like they're getting the unadulterated truth that "they" aren't getting. "Faux News" and the "Lamestream Media" are just 2 sides of the same coin. I reject all of them. 

  • Reply 109 of 119
    zabazaba Posts: 226member


    The BBC is definitely biased, without a shadow of doubt.

  • Reply 110 of 119
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Vevo is the only app in this "update" that shows in Canada, and a bigger pile of suckage I couldn't imagine.  


     


    Endless Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber videos with a  bit of Gaga thrown in does not a "channel" make IMO.  


    The only sort of good videos they have (Daft Punk, Calvin Harris etc.), are partial songs (adverts basically). 



    I didnt do much search- but ya... there was a lot of that crap... :)

  • Reply 111 of 119
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    Really? So where are the new channels then ?
    Not in Australia matey, tough luck, only US.
    Apple have to be very careful as this US centric policy could back fire on them.
  • Reply 112 of 119

    Originally Posted by hfts View Post


    Apple have to be very careful as this US centric policy could back fire on them.


     


    Oh, no! Catering to where they make the vast majority of their money could backfire?! 


     


    image

  • Reply 113 of 119
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hfts View Post



    Really? So where are the new channels then ?

    Not in Australia matey, tough luck, only US.

    Apple have to be very careful as this US centric policy could back fire on them.


    I don't think it's a "policy" so much as it is the a "symptom" of the communications & negotiations that have to occur between content providers, networks, and delivery owners (cable, dish, etc).  If Apple had their way, they would stream all content over AppleTV in every country immediately.  That would lead to their living room vision, which is currently stymied by the morass of content and advertising deals that currently pervade the video entertainment industry.


     


    Thompson

  • Reply 114 of 119
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Oh, no! Catering to where they make the vast majority of their money could backfire?! 


     


    image



    Don't feed the troll.  He was wrong to suggest that this has anything to do with Apple "policy", and you are only giving him fuel to continue the bogus argument.  I'm sure that if Apple could snap their fingers and bring Oz online, they would.


     


    Thompson

  • Reply 115 of 119

    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Don't feed the troll.  He was wrong to suggest that this has anything to do with Apple "policy", and you are only giving him fuel to continue the bogus argument.


     


    Oh, I'm not worried. All he cares about is his keyboard, so I doubt he'll be able to type a cogent reply. image

  • Reply 116 of 119
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,742member
    Multiple users are reporting Apple TV Show outages. There's nothing official on the Apple support status page tho.

    EDIT from 9to5:
    We’re receiving multiple reports from readers indicating that the TV Shows feature on Apple TV and on iTunes on Mac in the United States is seeing an outage. So, it’s not just you. Apple is yet to comment on the downtime on its official status page.
  • Reply 117 of 119
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    As per the above, I'll restate that I really, REALLY don't like how the Apple TV's UI is basically just a web interface, dependent on Apple's whims to show us what they want us to see. It needs to be proper apps in a proper layout and only updatable by user choice.

  • Reply 118 of 119
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Oh, no! Catering to where they make the vast majority of their money could backfire?! 


     


    image



    Maybe you should check your facts, more than 50% of Apple's revenue is from overseas.

  • Reply 119 of 119
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,930member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Oh, no! Catering to where they make the vast majority of their money could backfire?! 

     

    image


    False.  Less than half of both sales and profit are from the US.  Not even a majority, let alone a vast majority.

     

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2666881256x0x679218/594c826e-5c4a-429f-a6d2-4bc8374e1322/Q3_2013_Form_10-Q_As-Filed.pdf

Sign In or Register to comment.