soundsgoodtome

hmlongco said:

Major issue with new release and personal movie library. I have a lot of movies I've acquired over the years, and the TV app refuses to display more than 75 of them in any given list, leaving me with empty tiles. Exactly 75 of them, to be exact.

Switch to another category, and I'll see the first 75 of them there. And so on.

Worse is that tvOS now doesn't even show the title for selected tiles, which means I have no clue what any of the tiles w/o posters actually are.

The previous version had this problem intermittently. Now it seems to be permanent.

Even reset Apple TV and reinstalled OS. No joy.

Same here. Frustrating. But that's beta software. Hopefully you've reported it to Apple, and it's safe to assume this will get fixed during the cycle.

"all a Twitter blue checkmark will mean is the user is paid"

I think you meant "the user has paid."

Johan42 said:

I’ve found every article from AN+ on the publishers’ website for free. Yeah...it’s a waste of money.

You're missing the point.

Of course you can find the articles elsewhere by visiting each publisher's web site, one at a time, and looking for an article. But are those articles from different publishers all in one place, presented beautifully? Do they typically feature animation? And for the publishers that charge access on their web sites, are you getting dozens (or hundreds) of magazines for one price? Does each of those publishers' web sites automatically download the latest issue to your device for you to read at your convenience?

If Apple News+ isn't for you, that's fine. If convenience, presentation, and value (many titles for one price) don't appeal to you, that's fine. But if your belief that it's "a waste of money" is based primarily on your ability to search all over the web and find the same articles for free, you're missing the point.

Confusing article. Quote: "Feedly has a free option, though, and we've never needed anything more." If you've "never needed anything more," why isn't this article about Feedly, instead of Reeder?

[Moderators: Something appears broken on the site: When attempting to comment via an iPad, the keyboard never appears. I had to switch to an iPhone. Both are running the latest version of iOS 12.]

I'm an Academy member.

1. No one is being "excluded." The proposed rule change is about fairness. Netflix and services that are primarily about streaming have an unfair advantage over traditional film studios because the streamed films are potentially seen early by millions of viewers in their homes, whereas traditional studios' films are first shown in theaters before eventually streaming later. (In fact to be eligible for an Oscar, a film must be shown in a commercial theater for at least one week.)

The proposed change would simply require that Netflix, et al, show their films in theaters only (at first), just like other movie studios. It merely evens the playing field. 

2. The Justice Department has literally NO jurisdiction here, and they know it (which is why this letter was leaked, instead of published by the government, which is the norm).

Justice Department officials are reportedly mortified that they've been required to stoop to such petty nonsense. This laughable "warning" was clearly requested by the president, who has on numerous occasions attempted to "stick it" to companies or organizations with whom he has a personal grudge.