That's where it is so dangerous. It does an amazing job of presenting itself as a wonderful unbiased news source. However it is massively socialist centric, anti capitalist, anti american, and I would also accuse them of anti semitism.
Much of the stuff it broadcasts is amazing (such as their documentaries), but it is the gift which hides a darker side to the corrupt organisation. An organisation which forces the UK public to pay for it against their will. It's socialist centric slant comes from the way with which it is funded, it is biased by nature.
Plus it is riddled with pedofiles!
Wow, what a load of non sequiturs, your post isn't worth the effort of arguing with. Your spelling of organization, seems to indicate your British or British educated at least. By the way, I haven't checked recently, but I think most Brits are very proud of the BBC, 1960's Jimmy Savile incident aside (let's not get into listing similar situations in churches and numerous American groups.)
The problem is, the more they add to the AppleTV, the more the user interface shows its weaknesses. Of the icons that litter my Apple TV home screen, I only use 4 regularly. I really wish I could hide the ones I don't use, they are just pointless clutter. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
For a company that has a reputation for UI design, I am amazed that the interface for the Apple TV is as bad as it is.
Something as simple as allowing the enduser to scale and reorder the icons would be a huge step. I don't need such massive buttons on 65" or bigger displays.
You can reorder them now, the method is almost the same as the iPad, hold on one after selecting it and they jiggle, then they move with arrow buttons. Well hidden feature I know
not sure it contains a lot of files about feet, but it certainly was a haven for some pedophiles. Not exactly riddled though.
As an ex-pat living many years in the USA, and someone who watches the APP (ok on a samsung TV, shame on me) i insist that it is in no way anti american. The coverage is wide, and accurate. Now I also read daily the BBC web site- and comparing that to LA times, Huffington post, NY times, as well sometimes as Al-J, its simply not particularly biased.
As for its funding, that IS the reason it doesn't have to be biased, unlike Faux News, which relies heavily on advertising for its revenue - (anyone fancy Pappa Johns Pizza for lunch today?)
You made your point - several times, please leave the thread to get back on its tracks
Great post. I resisted the 'feet' joke as I couldn't remember if that was a UK spelling ... I've been here 23 years and no longer know American from British ... I am a total mess ... LOL, It's "paedophile" isn't it?
Great post. I resisted the 'feet' joke as I couldn't remember if that was a UK spelling ... I've been here 23 years and no longer know American from British ... I am a total mess ... LOL, It's "paedophile" isn't it?
Ha - thanks - at risk of derailing thread, for the first 10 years ago - i reserved the use of an english phrase for 'effect' but after 20 years, and with my memory aging, i have the same problem. Now I cant remember if I have to get a cart or a trolley when i go food shopping
The problem is, the more they add to the AppleTV, the more the user interface shows its weaknesses. Of the icons that litter my Apple TV home screen, I only use 4 regularly. I really wish I could hide the ones I don't use, they are just pointless clutter. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
For a company that has a reputation for UI design, I am amazed that the interface for the Apple TV is as bad as it is.
-kpluck
You select 'hide' for the channels you don't want (under general settings). It's tied to parental controls.
They will at some point have to unify search ala tivo. They did buy that company recently that has such a ready-built system.
Ha - thanks - at risk of derailing thread, for the first 10 years ago - i reserved the use of an english phrase for 'effect' but after 20 years, and with my memory aging, i have the same problem. Now I cant remember if I have to get a cart or a trolley when i go food shopping
You can reorder them now, the method is almost the same as the iPad, hold on one after selecting it and they jiggle, then they move with arrow buttons. Well hidden feature I know
Brilliant! Thanks mate. When did they add that? I never saw it in any beta release notes.
Brilliant! Thanks mate. When did they add that? I never saw it in any beta release notes.
YVW and we now also know how to 'hide'
'Move' was Several iterations ago I believe, I forget when exactly. I found it by accident I have to admit! I am so used to the iPad I just assumed it did that ...
The only ugly thing I see are the Disney icons. But you're right; we're gonna need folders soon for all the content that will be available on it.
I've never ever EVER liked how Apple does this with the Apple TV. All updates and changes to software should be legally user-implemented only. Hopefully the simplicity of the UI remains if they decide to completely change it.
Any iDevice…
One should be able to choose the channels that they want. Imagine every app in the app store having a icon on your iPhone/iPad.
What a total load of rubbish. I continually find the BBC web site has breaking news about what's happening here in the USA long before CNN et al. Of course I flip between many news outlets but the BBC has an amazing set of in depth sub sections that rival many dedicated web sites in various fields. The science and tech sections are extremely good for example. It isn't all about politics you know ... or shouldn't be.
My guess is you don't like it precisely because it doesn't put a slant on things the way you'd prefer. That is a reflection of the viewer not the source.
You do realize you contradicted yourself? You like BBC because it does "put a slant on things the way you'd prefer."
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it is not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
not sure it contains a lot of files about feet, but it certainly was a haven for some pedophiles. Not exactly riddled though.
As an ex-pat living many years in the USA, and someone who watches the APP (ok on a samsung TV, shame on me) i insist that it is in no way anti american. The coverage is wide, and accurate. Now I also read daily the BBC web site- and comparing that to LA times, Huffington post, NY times, as well sometimes as Al-J, its simply not particularly biased.
As for its funding, that IS the reason it doesn't have to be biased, unlike Faux News, which relies heavily on advertising for its revenue - (anyone fancy Pappa Johns Pizza for lunch today?)
You made your point - several times, please leave the thread to get back on its tracks
Didn't you get the memo? Using the tired old cliche "Faux News" screams I'm a tool.
Everyone thinks the news agency they refer to is the best because "they're unbiased." Its almost like a religion anymore. Let me clue you in on a little something, each news organization has an agenda in what they cover and how they cover it. If you can't see that then you need to wake up. It is our responsibility to take the various reports and put them together to get the complete story. To discredit one news source over another because "it's cool" in your circle of friends doesn't make you smarter, it makes you dumber.
You do realize you contradicted yourself? You like BBC because it does "<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">put a slant on things the way you'd prefer."</span>
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it is not there.
That's where it is so dangerous. It does an amazing job of presenting itself as a wonderful unbiased news source. However it is massively socialist centric, anti capitalist, anti american, and I would also accuse them of anti semitism.
Much of the stuff it broadcasts is amazing (such as their documentaries), but it is the gift which hides a darker side to the corrupt organisation. An organisation which forces the UK public to pay for it against their will. It's socialist centric slant comes from the way with which it is funded, it is biased by nature.
I have been privy to indepth information which the BBC has broadcast, and I know for a fact that the BBC has been efficient with the truth, because on a few occasions the BBC was reporting on things I have been deeply involved in!
Plus it is riddled with pedofiles!
Oh yeah, you don't sound the least bit biased at all.
not sure it contains a lot of files about feet, but it certainly was a haven for some pedophiles. Not exactly riddled though.
As an ex-pat living many years in the USA, and someone who watches the APP (ok on a samsung TV, shame on me) i insist that it is in no way anti american. The coverage is wide, and accurate. Now I also read daily the BBC web site- and comparing that to LA times, Huffington post, NY times, as well sometimes as Al-J, its simply not particularly biased.
As for its funding, that IS the reason it doesn't have to be biased, unlike Faux News, which relies heavily on advertising for its revenue - (anyone fancy Pappa Johns Pizza for lunch today?)
You made your point - several times, please leave the thread to get back on its tracks
I find it tiresome when elitists rail on about "Faux News", as though their somehow any different than any of the other news sources available in the USA. This isn't a right vs left sort of thing as far as I'm concerned. The state of news reporting in the USA is awful. ALL the channels bias the news in order to put forth a particular message either overtly or as an earlier poster said by what they don't say. All the news sources mentioned above, like Fox News, are run by advertising and they all exhibit a bias. To imply otherwise is at best disingenuous.
Unlike many posters her, I do not think that an app centric model is the way to go for Apple TV. If they do end up traveling down that path, then nothing's changed from the old cable provider model where one subscribe's to channels.
For instance, if you are a "Game of Thrones" fan, then you need to subscribe to HBO. Whether watch Bill Maher's show or not or whether you like boxing or not, you're still financing it since you are paying for the HBO package.
Same thing with Discovery. You may only want to watch "Myth Busters" and may not care about "Moonshiners" or the "Deadliest Catch".
In essence, the content you like may be spread over 15 different stations. Why pay a subscription to them if all you ever watch is one show from each? How is that different from today's cable packages?
If on the other hand Apple negotiates a deal where an account can pay for say 50 hours a month of original programming, no matter where is comes from,
then all you may have to do is search "Game of Thrones" and then Play. The Apple servers then will start streaming the episode directly to your TV, Mac, iPad or iPhone and your account's counters starts counting down the seconds from 50 hours. Now let's assume you want to watch that same episode again on your big screen TV at home. Then Apple knows that you already streamed that show and won't reduce it from your allocated hours.
At the same time Apple will send the necessary amount of $ back to HBO for that episode that was streamed.
In the end the customer pays just for the number of hours watched and not an entire package where maybe only 5% of it, interests him.
Comments
Wow, what a load of non sequiturs, your post isn't worth the effort of arguing with. Your spelling of organization, seems to indicate your British or British educated at least. By the way, I haven't checked recently, but I think most Brits are very proud of the BBC, 1960's Jimmy Savile incident aside (let's not get into listing similar situations in churches and numerous American groups.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugbug
Bring it, apple.
The problem is, the more they add to the AppleTV, the more the user interface shows its weaknesses. Of the icons that litter my Apple TV home screen, I only use 4 regularly. I really wish I could hide the ones I don't use, they are just pointless clutter. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
For a company that has a reputation for UI design, I am amazed that the interface for the Apple TV is as bad as it is.
-kpluck
You can reorder them now, the method is almost the same as the iPad, hold on one after selecting it and they jiggle, then they move with arrow buttons. Well hidden feature I know
Great post. I resisted the 'feet' joke as I couldn't remember if that was a UK spelling ... I've been here 23 years and no longer know American from British ... I am a total mess ... LOL, It's "paedophile" isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Great post. I resisted the 'feet' joke as I couldn't remember if that was a UK spelling ... I've been here 23 years and no longer know American from British ... I am a total mess ... LOL, It's "paedophile" isn't it?
Ha - thanks - at risk of derailing thread, for the first 10 years ago - i reserved the use of an english phrase for 'effect' but after 20 years, and with my memory aging, i have the same problem. Now I cant remember if I have to get a cart or a trolley when i go food shopping
Originally Posted by kpluck
I really wish I could hide the ones I don't use…
Of course you can. Parental Controls. Just turn them off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
An organisation which forces the UK public to pay for it against their will.
Nope. Sorry.
Brit here who likes the BBC but doesn't have a TV license. I haven't been forced by anyone to do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
The problem is, the more they add to the AppleTV, the more the user interface shows its weaknesses. Of the icons that litter my Apple TV home screen, I only use 4 regularly. I really wish I could hide the ones I don't use, they are just pointless clutter. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
For a company that has a reputation for UI design, I am amazed that the interface for the Apple TV is as bad as it is.
-kpluck
You select 'hide' for the channels you don't want (under general settings). It's tied to parental controls.
They will at some point have to unify search ala tivo. They did buy that company recently that has such a ready-built system.
ROFL .. you too? Love it.
Cough ... Back to Apple TV
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugbug
You select 'hide' for the channels you don't want (under general settings). It's tied to parental controls.
They will at some point have to unify search ala tivo. They did buy that company recently that has such a ready-built system.
Of course, some of us are old enough to remember Sherlock doing this in the OS 9 days.
Brilliant! Thanks mate. When did they add that? I never saw it in any beta release notes.
Oh thank you, I learn something new everyday. Never even looked at parental control! The cat can't use the small controller anyway
YVW and we now also know how to 'hide'
'Move' was Several iterations ago I believe, I forget when exactly. I found it by accident I have to admit! I am so used to the iPad I just assumed it did that ...
One should be able to choose the channels that they want. Imagine every app in the app store having a icon on your iPhone/iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
What a total load of rubbish. I continually find the BBC web site has breaking news about what's happening here in the USA long before CNN et al. Of course I flip between many news outlets but the BBC has an amazing set of in depth sub sections that rival many dedicated web sites in various fields. The science and tech sections are extremely good for example. It isn't all about politics you know ... or shouldn't be.
My guess is you don't like it precisely because it doesn't put a slant on things the way you'd prefer. That is a reflection of the viewer not the source.
You do realize you contradicted yourself? You like BBC because it does "put a slant on things the way you'd prefer."
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it is not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
not sure it contains a lot of files about feet, but it certainly was a haven for some pedophiles. Not exactly riddled though.
As an ex-pat living many years in the USA, and someone who watches the APP (ok on a samsung TV, shame on me) i insist that it is in no way anti american. The coverage is wide, and accurate. Now I also read daily the BBC web site- and comparing that to LA times, Huffington post, NY times, as well sometimes as Al-J, its simply not particularly biased.
As for its funding, that IS the reason it doesn't have to be biased, unlike Faux News, which relies heavily on advertising for its revenue - (anyone fancy Pappa Johns Pizza for lunch today?)
You made your point - several times, please leave the thread to get back on its tracks
Didn't you get the memo? Using the tired old cliche "Faux News" screams I'm a tool.
Everyone thinks the news agency they refer to is the best because "they're unbiased." Its almost like a religion anymore. Let me clue you in on a little something, each news organization has an agenda in what they cover and how they cover it. If you can't see that then you need to wake up. It is our responsibility to take the various reports and put them together to get the complete story. To discredit one news source over another because "it's cool" in your circle of friends doesn't make you smarter, it makes you dumber.
It's the slant he agrees with.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
One should be able to choose the channels that they want.
I see the Channel Store showing up soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
That's where it is so dangerous. It does an amazing job of presenting itself as a wonderful unbiased news source. However it is massively socialist centric, anti capitalist, anti american, and I would also accuse them of anti semitism.
Much of the stuff it broadcasts is amazing (such as their documentaries), but it is the gift which hides a darker side to the corrupt organisation. An organisation which forces the UK public to pay for it against their will. It's socialist centric slant comes from the way with which it is funded, it is biased by nature.
I have been privy to indepth information which the BBC has broadcast, and I know for a fact that the BBC has been efficient with the truth, because on a few occasions the BBC was reporting on things I have been deeply involved in!
Plus it is riddled with pedofiles!
Oh yeah, you don't sound the least bit biased at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
not sure it contains a lot of files about feet, but it certainly was a haven for some pedophiles. Not exactly riddled though.
As an ex-pat living many years in the USA, and someone who watches the APP (ok on a samsung TV, shame on me) i insist that it is in no way anti american. The coverage is wide, and accurate. Now I also read daily the BBC web site- and comparing that to LA times, Huffington post, NY times, as well sometimes as Al-J, its simply not particularly biased.
As for its funding, that IS the reason it doesn't have to be biased, unlike Faux News, which relies heavily on advertising for its revenue - (anyone fancy Pappa Johns Pizza for lunch today?)
You made your point - several times, please leave the thread to get back on its tracks
I find it tiresome when elitists rail on about "Faux News", as though their somehow any different than any of the other news sources available in the USA. This isn't a right vs left sort of thing as far as I'm concerned. The state of news reporting in the USA is awful. ALL the channels bias the news in order to put forth a particular message either overtly or as an earlier poster said by what they don't say. All the news sources mentioned above, like Fox News, are run by advertising and they all exhibit a bias. To imply otherwise is at best disingenuous.
Unlike many posters her, I do not think that an app centric model is the way to go for Apple TV. If they do end up traveling down that path, then nothing's changed from the old cable provider model where one subscribe's to channels.
For instance, if you are a "Game of Thrones" fan, then you need to subscribe to HBO. Whether watch Bill Maher's show or not or whether you like boxing or not, you're still financing it since you are paying for the HBO package.
Same thing with Discovery. You may only want to watch "Myth Busters" and may not care about "Moonshiners" or the "Deadliest Catch".
In essence, the content you like may be spread over 15 different stations. Why pay a subscription to them if all you ever watch is one show from each? How is that different from today's cable packages?
If on the other hand Apple negotiates a deal where an account can pay for say 50 hours a month of original programming, no matter where is comes from,
then all you may have to do is search "Game of Thrones" and then Play. The Apple servers then will start streaming the episode directly to your TV, Mac, iPad or iPhone and your account's counters starts counting down the seconds from 50 hours. Now let's assume you want to watch that same episode again on your big screen TV at home. Then Apple knows that you already streamed that show and won't reduce it from your allocated hours.
At the same time Apple will send the necessary amount of $ back to HBO for that episode that was streamed.
In the end the customer pays just for the number of hours watched and not an entire package where maybe only 5% of it, interests him.