Why would there be blackouts if the broadcast stations and espn are on board?
Because leagues have their own rules.
Clearly, you do not watch sports because you think everything is controlled by broadcast networks and ESPN.
Let's say I want to watch my hometown Giants on TV? The vast majority of their games are broadcast on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, which is carried on cable and satellite TV. I can't get these games on broadcast TV and MLB.TV Premium won't let me access these games either due to local blackout rules.
But that content isn't exclusive. I can get it from cable or DirecTV or Dish. And all of them let me watch programs on my mobile devices. There has to be something that makes Apple's service (or anyone else's, for that matter) more desirable. Why pay for a subset of channels/programs offered on cable with mandatory advertising? Yuck. No thanks. I'll just pay for cable and enjoy skipping commercials with a DVR.
Are you now suggesting the 2015 iDevices have only implemented HVEC via SW? I simply can't see Apple doing that. Looking at H.264 their modus operandi is clearly waiting for the HW to get to a point that it makes sense to adopt.
H.264 & H.265 will both be in use for a very long time.
The Apple TV is designed to work on wifi or wired ethernet not cellular.
You've making that "I like turtles" kid look like a genius with these pointless comments.
You clearly have no evidence of HVEC in the Apple TV so stop saying it's in there, and stop making pointless comments about usage "for a very long time" and weird ass comments about cellular.
It's really fucking simple: HVEC will come when the HW is ready. We're already seeing it in iDevices released in 2015. It could have been added to the most recent Mac updates. We absolutely still need the HVEC HW decoders in the Apple TV. When their products get mostly updated with the HVEC HW then they update iTS with HVEC support. This will reduce file sizes for 1) downloading/streaming thus resulting in faster startup times and lower bandwidth usage, 2) result in smaller storage files, and 3) set a foundation for 4K UHD support, which may or may not come at the same time (depending on content owner support).
But that content isn't exclusive. I can get it from cable or DirecTV or Dish. And all of them let me watch programs on my mobile devices. There has to be something that makes Apple's service (or anyone else's, for that matter) more desirable. Why pay for a subset of channels/programs offered on cable with mandatory advertising? Yuck. No thanks. I'll just pay for cable and enjoy skipping commercials with a DVR.
1) If you want HBO and if it's cheaper on your Apple TV than with you cable company then why pay your cable company at all? That would be point… to get that content that way. Regardless, it's still about the content.
2) Note, you already pay your cable company for ad-heavy content you could otherwise get for free. You do know that, right?
You've making that "I like turtles" kid look like a genius with these pointless comments.
You clearly have no evidence of HVEC in the Apple TV so stop saying it's in there, and stop making pointless comments about usage "for a very long time" and weird ass comments about cellular.
It's really fucking simple: HVEC will come when the HW is ready. We're already seeing it in iDevices released in 2015. It could have been added to the most recent Mac updates. We absolutely still need the HVEC HW decoders in the Apple TV. When their products get mostly updated with the HVEC HW then they update iTS with HVEC support. This will reduce file sizes for 1) downloading/streaming thus resulting in faster startup times and lower bandwidth usage, 2) result in smaller storage files, and 3) set a foundation for 4K UHD support, which may or may not come at the same time (depending on content owner support).
1) If you want HBO and if it's cheaper on your Apple TV than with you cable company then why pay your cable company at all? That would be point… to get that content that way. Regardless, it's still about the content.
2) Note, you already pay your cable company for ad-heavy content you could otherwise get for free. You do know that, right?
I don't pay my cable company for TV, just Internet. I haven't paid for TV in over 5 years. I use Hulu, buy a few shows from iTunes, and occasionally torrent things I can't get from either of those.
To your two points, Mr. Know-It-All:
1) I'm really not interested in jumping between multiple boxes and services to save a few dollars. If I'm already subscribing to cable, I'll pay them for HBO. But we're not talking about HBO anyway, since they are commercial free. My earlier comment had nothing to do with HBO, but rather with networks who rely upon advertising. If an Apple service forces me to watch ads, I'm not paying for it. If Apple gives me an ad-free TV experience, I'll pay top dollar.
2) I'm so glad that there are wonderfully intelligent people out there like you to educate poor dumb little me on how TV works. I had absolutely NO IDEA that I could get content for free. Thanks so much for enlightening me!
I don't see the major sports leagues buying into this; they aren't going to lift the local blackout rules.
That's really the showstopper: live sporting events and a lot of first-time broadcast events.
There's nothing wrong with the current Apple TV hardware for the typical viewer (I just bought a refurb for $59). It's the content that comes up shorthanded. After all, you're only watching one video stream at a time. A three-year old Apple TV is perfectly fine in presenting 1080p content.
Joe Consumer doesn't really care about the TV hardware. They care about the programming, what they can watch, not CPU generations like dork wads.
You can already get MLB and the NBA on Apple TV. They already know how to deal with blackout rules.
I use Hulu, buy a few shows from iTunes, and occasionally torrent things I can't get from either of those.
You write that, which you then follow up with..
I'm really not interested in jumping between multiple boxes and services to save a few dollars.
That might be a single "box" for you, but that's certainly multiple services.
You also confusing wrote…
At that point I'd just get cable again and use a DVR.I can get it from cable or DirecTV or Dish. […] I'll just pay for cable and enjoy skipping commercials with a DVR.
Then, when being called out for conflicting comments, you reply with...
I haven't paid for TV in over 5 years.
Brilliant!
If I'm already subscribing to cable, I'll pay them for HBO.
But as you stated, you're not, and you're not going to get current HBO content on Hulu, and if you watch enough content on HBO the per episode à la carte on iTS is going to cost a lot more than HBONOW. In fact, the maths are easy.
HBONOW = $14.99 per month.
Game of Thrones = $38.99 per season (a 91¢ savings over the per episode cost)
You need only a 40% of a season of GoT to exceed the price of an entire month of HBONOW in HD. (I wonder if HBONOW offer 1080p for that price or is it maxed at 720p. I may have to buy it so I can analyze the cached content files. Comparing their per-episode size against what's available on iTS should be sufficient).
So if you buy episodes on iTS and find it's more cost effective than packaged services then you really aren't their target customer because your content consumption is low.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
That might be a single "box" for you, but that's certainly multiple services.
You also confusing wrote…
Then, when being called out for conflicting comments, you reply with...
Brilliant!
But as you stated, you're not, and you're not going to get current HBO content on Hulu, and if you watch enough content on HBO the per episode à la carte on iTS is going to cost a lot more than HBONOW. In fact, the maths are easy.
HBONOW = $14.99 per month.
Game of Thrones = $38.99 per season (a 91¢ savings over the per episode cost)
You need only a 40% of a season of GoT to exceed the price of an entire month of HBONOW in HD. (I wonder if HBONOW offer 1080p for that price or is it maxed at 720p. I may have to buy it so I can analyze the cached content files. Comparing their per-episode size against what's available on iTS should be sufficient).
So if you buy episodes on iTS and find it's more cost effective than packaged services then you really aren't their target customer because your content consumption is low.
Nothing confusing. Sorry if it's too hard for you to follow. My original comment had nothing to do with HOW I WATCH TV TODAY. It was a comment on the rumored TV service from Apple and my comment stands. I'm not going to pay $40+/month for limited programming with commercials. At that price point, I'll just get cable and use a DVR, have more content than I could ever possibly care to watch, and I'll be able to skip commercials. If Apple gives me a TV service without commercials for a fee, I'm on board. Otherwise I don't see the point. Why would I pay Apple to watch some network show that I can watch on Hulu for free if I have to put up with commercials either way? Of course I'll stick with free. Was that so hard to understand?
As for different boxes and services...I use one box today, Apple TV. Yes, there are different services on it, but they all pretty much work the same. It's like changing channels. But you already know this. As I said, I'm not going to jump between multiple boxes AND services. Did you miss the AND in my earlier comment? Was that what confused you so much? Go back and read it again. Multiple boxes AND services. I'll change "channels" on the same box. One interface. One remote. Easy. That's not the same thing as "multiple boxes AND services." Make sense now?
And yes, the math is easy. At $15/month, HBO Now costs $180/year. I can buy 4+ full seasons of HBO shows on iTunes for that same price, assuming each season costs around $40. I watch three HBO shows: Game of Thrones, Silicon Valley, and The Leftovers. I'm better off buying those three shows from iTunes than subscribing to HBO Now.
But my comment wasn't about HBO. It was about commercials. I'll tolerate commercials if the content is free (or super cheap, like Hulu Plus) and the commercials are short (again, like Hulu...although they're getting longer). But if I have to pay for content AND suffer through commercials, I'll go with cable and use a DVR. Just I like I've said all along. Nothing confusing about it. So unless Apple's service is commercial free, I'm not paying for it.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
Totally agree on the need or original content to make the service viable/interesting. Although keep in mind that none of Netflix or Amazon's shows are exclusive to one device like "must have shows available only on Apple TV". I can stream Netflix and Amazon to my TV directly (I don't, but I could) and pretty much every set-top box these days supports a variety of streaming services. Netflix and Amazon want their content to be available on as many devices as possible. Also, I'm pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't any unique/exclusive music on iTunes. Yes, some albums have debuted first on iTunes, but they always make it to other services eventually.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
What the hell are you talking about? Did Comcast DTV or Dish have its own content? This is a TV service to help you cut the core: pay what you want, not bundles
Fix the box: Apple TV with an A8X. That way in 4 years when you actually offer a newer version people will feel they got their money's worth, not to mention you need a device that pushes far greater than 1080p within the next 18 months.
Make it dual A8X or the upcoming A9.
I second that. Would be nice if Apple could stop neglect some of its hardware, like the 27" monitor, the Apple TV, ... Somehow, I have the feeling that the lack of updates on both of those devices is link.
Would love either a 4k tv set or a Apple TV box that supports 4k, games, apps, home kit, ...
It's a lot cheaper than the $110/mo I pay right now for Comcast HD and I barely watch it except for a few local programs. Give me decent local network programming on ATV, for $30-$40 (hopefully less) and I'll cut that cable for good. I'm tired of paying what I am, and not being given the option of more modern options.
While you're at it Apple, get out that new ATV box will ya? Sheesh!
Why not just get an antenna, and get the OTA network broadcast? The HD quality is much better.
Comments
Why would there be blackouts if the broadcast stations and espn are on board?
Because leagues have their own rules.
Clearly, you do not watch sports because you think everything is controlled by broadcast networks and ESPN.
Let's say I want to watch my hometown Giants on TV? The vast majority of their games are broadcast on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, which is carried on cable and satellite TV. I can't get these games on broadcast TV and MLB.TV Premium won't let me access these games either due to local blackout rules.
Content is the point.
But that content isn't exclusive. I can get it from cable or DirecTV or Dish. And all of them let me watch programs on my mobile devices. There has to be something that makes Apple's service (or anyone else's, for that matter) more desirable. Why pay for a subset of channels/programs offered on cable with mandatory advertising? Yuck. No thanks. I'll just pay for cable and enjoy skipping commercials with a DVR.
You previously suggested it was.
Are you now suggesting the 2015 iDevices have only implemented HVEC via SW? I simply can't see Apple doing that. Looking at H.264 their modus operandi is clearly waiting for the HW to get to a point that it makes sense to adopt.
You've making that "I like turtles" kid look like a genius with these pointless comments.
You clearly have no evidence of HVEC in the Apple TV so stop saying it's in there, and stop making pointless comments about usage "for a very long time" and weird ass comments about cellular.
It's really fucking simple: HVEC will come when the HW is ready. We're already seeing it in iDevices released in 2015. It could have been added to the most recent Mac updates. We absolutely still need the HVEC HW decoders in the Apple TV. When their products get mostly updated with the HVEC HW then they update iTS with HVEC support. This will reduce file sizes for 1) downloading/streaming thus resulting in faster startup times and lower bandwidth usage, 2) result in smaller storage files, and 3) set a foundation for 4K UHD support, which may or may not come at the same time (depending on content owner support).
1) If you want HBO and if it's cheaper on your Apple TV than with you cable company then why pay your cable company at all? That would be point… to get that content that way. Regardless, it's still about the content.
2) Note, you already pay your cable company for ad-heavy content you could otherwise get for free. You do know that, right?
You previously suggested it was.
You've making that "I like turtles" kid look like a genius with these pointless comments.
You clearly have no evidence of HVEC in the Apple TV so stop saying it's in there, and stop making pointless comments about usage "for a very long time" and weird ass comments about cellular.
It's really fucking simple: HVEC will come when the HW is ready. We're already seeing it in iDevices released in 2015. It could have been added to the most recent Mac updates. We absolutely still need the HVEC HW decoders in the Apple TV. When their products get mostly updated with the HVEC HW then they update iTS with HVEC support. This will reduce file sizes for 1) downloading/streaming thus resulting in faster startup times and lower bandwidth usage, 2) result in smaller storage files, and 3) set a foundation for 4K UHD support, which may or may not come at the same time (depending on content owner support).
How old are you? LOL
1) If you want HBO and if it's cheaper on your Apple TV than with you cable company then why pay your cable company at all? That would be point… to get that content that way. Regardless, it's still about the content.
2) Note, you already pay your cable company for ad-heavy content you could otherwise get for free. You do know that, right?
I don't pay my cable company for TV, just Internet. I haven't paid for TV in over 5 years. I use Hulu, buy a few shows from iTunes, and occasionally torrent things I can't get from either of those.
To your two points, Mr. Know-It-All:
1) I'm really not interested in jumping between multiple boxes and services to save a few dollars. If I'm already subscribing to cable, I'll pay them for HBO. But we're not talking about HBO anyway, since they are commercial free. My earlier comment had nothing to do with HBO, but rather with networks who rely upon advertising. If an Apple service forces me to watch ads, I'm not paying for it. If Apple gives me an ad-free TV experience, I'll pay top dollar.
2) I'm so glad that there are wonderfully intelligent people out there like you to educate poor dumb little me on how TV works. I had absolutely NO IDEA that I could get content for free. Thanks so much for enlightening me!
You can already get MLB and the NBA on Apple TV. They already know how to deal with blackout rules.
You write that, which you then follow up with..
That might be a single "box" for you, but that's certainly multiple services.
You also confusing wrote…
Then, when being called out for conflicting comments, you reply with...
Brilliant!
But as you stated, you're not, and you're not going to get current HBO content on Hulu, and if you watch enough content on HBO the per episode à la carte on iTS is going to cost a lot more than HBONOW. In fact, the maths are easy.
HBONOW = $14.99 per month.
Game of Thrones = $38.99 per season (a 91¢ savings over the per episode cost)
You need only a 40% of a season of GoT to exceed the price of an entire month of HBONOW in HD. (I wonder if HBONOW offer 1080p for that price or is it maxed at 720p. I may have to buy it so I can analyze the cached content files. Comparing their per-episode size against what's available on iTS should be sufficient).
So if you buy episodes on iTS and find it's more cost effective than packaged services then you really aren't their target customer because your content consumption is low.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
You write that, which you then follow up with..
That might be a single "box" for you, but that's certainly multiple services.
You also confusing wrote…
Then, when being called out for conflicting comments, you reply with...
Brilliant!
But as you stated, you're not, and you're not going to get current HBO content on Hulu, and if you watch enough content on HBO the per episode à la carte on iTS is going to cost a lot more than HBONOW. In fact, the maths are easy.
HBONOW = $14.99 per month.
Game of Thrones = $38.99 per season (a 91¢ savings over the per episode cost)
You need only a 40% of a season of GoT to exceed the price of an entire month of HBONOW in HD. (I wonder if HBONOW offer 1080p for that price or is it maxed at 720p. I may have to buy it so I can analyze the cached content files. Comparing their per-episode size against what's available on iTS should be sufficient).
So if you buy episodes on iTS and find it's more cost effective than packaged services then you really aren't their target customer because your content consumption is low.
Nothing confusing. Sorry if it's too hard for you to follow. My original comment had nothing to do with HOW I WATCH TV TODAY. It was a comment on the rumored TV service from Apple and my comment stands. I'm not going to pay $40+/month for limited programming with commercials. At that price point, I'll just get cable and use a DVR, have more content than I could ever possibly care to watch, and I'll be able to skip commercials. If Apple gives me a TV service without commercials for a fee, I'm on board. Otherwise I don't see the point. Why would I pay Apple to watch some network show that I can watch on Hulu for free if I have to put up with commercials either way? Of course I'll stick with free. Was that so hard to understand?
As for different boxes and services...I use one box today, Apple TV. Yes, there are different services on it, but they all pretty much work the same. It's like changing channels. But you already know this. As I said, I'm not going to jump between multiple boxes AND services. Did you miss the AND in my earlier comment? Was that what confused you so much? Go back and read it again. Multiple boxes AND services. I'll change "channels" on the same box. One interface. One remote. Easy. That's not the same thing as "multiple boxes AND services." Make sense now?
And yes, the math is easy. At $15/month, HBO Now costs $180/year. I can buy 4+ full seasons of HBO shows on iTunes for that same price, assuming each season costs around $40. I watch three HBO shows: Game of Thrones, Silicon Valley, and The Leftovers. I'm better off buying those three shows from iTunes than subscribing to HBO Now.
But my comment wasn't about HBO. It was about commercials. I'll tolerate commercials if the content is free (or super cheap, like Hulu Plus) and the commercials are short (again, like Hulu...although they're getting longer). But if I have to pay for content AND suffer through commercials, I'll go with cable and use a DVR. Just I like I've said all along. Nothing confusing about it. So unless Apple's service is commercial free, I'm not paying for it.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
Totally agree on the need or original content to make the service viable/interesting. Although keep in mind that none of Netflix or Amazon's shows are exclusive to one device like "must have shows available only on Apple TV". I can stream Netflix and Amazon to my TV directly (I don't, but I could) and pretty much every set-top box these days supports a variety of streaming services. Netflix and Amazon want their content to be available on as many devices as possible. Also, I'm pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't any unique/exclusive music on iTunes. Yes, some albums have debuted first on iTunes, but they always make it to other services eventually.
Fix the box: Apple TV with an A8X. That way in 4 years when you actually offer a newer version people will feel they got their money's worth, not to mention you need a device that pushes far greater than 1080p within the next 18 months.
Make it dual A8X or the upcoming A9.
I second that. Would be nice if Apple could stop neglect some of its hardware, like the 27" monitor, the Apple TV, ... Somehow, I have the feeling that the lack of updates on both of those devices is link.
Would love either a 4k tv set or a Apple TV box that supports 4k, games, apps, home kit, ...
Not gonna work well if it's just mini-cable. I want to get to pick what channels I pay for.
Quote:Go to candy land
or to Quebec, Canada. This is how it works here.
Why not just get an antenna, and get the OTA network broadcast? The HD quality is much better.
I'm only interested if it's commercial free. Otherwise, what's the point?
Its already here, and its called buying season pass on itunes. IF you want it cheaper you need commercials, you can't have it both ways.
you pay for it in taxes
we have lots of taxes indeed, but none of them directly related to TV services. Most noticeable taxes here are gas, alcohol and tobacco.