Apple TV adds Watch ABC, Crackle, Bloomberg News, and KORTV

“Apple has added new apps for Watch ABC — the network’s TV Everywhere offering — Crackle, Bloomberg, and Korean channel KORTV [to Apple TV],” Chris Welch reports for The Verge.

“All four are available now to Apple TV owners in the United States,” Welch reports. “Crackle, a streaming service owned by Sony, offers a catalog of movies, TV shows, and original programming that can be viewed for free. Jerry Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee series is a standout.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We love Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, so we’re doubly happy to have it on Apple TV now!

48 Comments

  1. As long as I am here reading MDN’s latest offerings, it is of no intereat to me what is on offer on any of those channels, more so if they are abroad and inaccessible from here wherever here is!

  2. It’s annoying to see this and realize that the thin line on the map that separates Canada and the US is responsible for denying a whole lot of programming.

    I hope this will be resolved soon. We get about 1/3rd or less of the Netscape, not to mention the rest of the products.

    1. I get crackle on my Sony TV in Canada… so I don’t imagine it will be far behind on Apple TV. That being said, I’m surprised not to see CBC on Apple TV. That would be a great modern thinking move… especially considering it’s one of the strongest terrestrial channels OTA in most cities.

  3. I was not impressed at all with either Crackle or Watch ABC. Both services have very limited selections and Crackle has plenty of unskippable advertising interspersed in every stream.

    Watch ABC has very little content. And Crackle is about 60% anime. I have nothing to say about KorTV – wonder if that’s just a dig against Samsung?

    1. I installed Crackle on my iPhone last March. Still haven’t watched anything on it. As an anime fan, I have no problem with Crackle having a lot it, but it’s not particularly good anime. If you like anime, sign up for Crunchyroll.

      ——RM

  4. Better have fixed the Netflix horrid quality. Seems to be an issue with the Netflix app on Apple TV. Who’s problem is this Apple’s or Netflix?

    The Apple TV software really needs a serious overhaul and new organization features. There’s far too many apps on the home screen.

    1. I’ve got the same problem, and so do most of my friends. Quality took a nose-dive a month ago. Here’s a question for you: Do you have Comcast?

      All of the video plays great on my Apple TV for things that I purchased from Apple and through other ATV apps (HBO Go, etc). Netflix is the only one that’s grainy. But it’s also grainy (256 k/second) on my iPhone and iPad. I checked my internet speed, and it’s about 30 down/7 up with a 20 ms ping.

      So, I did a simple test: I disabled my wifi to see what happened, as my 5s gets about the same speed as my home internet. Lo and behold, I had full HD on my iPhone, iPad, and ATV. This leads me to believe that it’s not an Apple problem or a Netflix problem. I think it’s something that Comcast is doing to slow down the Netflix feed (pretty dramatically; before I was getting over 3,000 kps).

      1. So if I disable my Time Machine wifi via my MacBook Air, Netflix will play in HD? My Apple TV is hooked up to my Time Machine via an Ethernet cable, so it’s strange to think disabling wifi has anything to do with it.

        (I, too, am a Comcast customer and noticed a quality drop about a month ago.)

    2. Don’t know what the issue is with Netflix on Apple TV, but yeah, I’m noticing it too. Watched a movie two nights ago and wow, yuck. Kept dropping quality every few minutes.

      I finally switched back to the PS3 for Netflix and wow again, it’s like night and day.

      Could be the app needs a major overhaul. It was pretty revolutionary when it was introduced, but Netflix has made major upgrades to their other platforms since then.

      ——RM

    1. PBS garbage. PBS has great programming. Have you watched America Revealed? Nova? Frontline? These are great documentary TV series that keep in the spirit of a documentary, rather than doing that reality TV crap Discovery channel does. Austin City Limits has great musical artist showcases. Whatever, your probably one of those guys that doesn’t believe in public television programming, keep it in the private sector; because that produces so much better entertainment. Like the Kardashians right? Like Castle right? Like Judge Judy right? 75% of commercial television lacks so much depth and originality.

      Although, I agree with the sports crap. But, at least its there for those sports fans.

        1. This is the problem with public discourse these days. Im only 30 years old and i am saying these days, like i even have the experience to reflect upon. But seriously, GoeB, you, and others, always stick a political symbol in your argument to solidify your statement. Like saying “lefty programming” has any real weight to your argument? Its like saying, “oh the toilet is clogged…damn it must be those liberals with their public water sewage system”

          My statement dealt with a critique to his assertion that pbs is garbage, and I gave a rebuttal. If you wanted to add anything useful to the argument, you could maybe say what you think is wrong with pbs, like its content or it’s lack of ideas, but you just throw shit at the wall hoping it will stick.

          1. “My statement dealt with a critique to his assertion that pbs is garbage …”

            Yes, you are absolutely correct grasshopper. You did not articulate the reason why — I did, rather obtuse wording I’ll have to admit.

            Do you really need me to spell it out for you? I think not. Your smart enough to understand the pervasive PC drivel and left-wing politics that infiltrated and guided PBS and most major media outlets that started before you were born.

            Us grizzled old farts remember when the media was pure as the driven snow and an admirable profession. But it is indeed a very sad thing young people today will never see it …

            Thanks for a spirited comeback. Hope my clarification helps. 🙂

            1. Facts are not on your side, you are lame and fallacious.

              1. PBS DOES NOT directly receive government money, the CPB does, 72% of those funds are awarded to LOCAL PBS affiliates to use at their discretion.

              3. A Board of Directors governs CPB, sets policy, and establishes programming priorities. The President of the United States appoints each member, who, after confirmation by the Senate, serves a six year term. The Board, in turn, appoints the president and chief executive officer, who then names the other corporate officers.

              4. The 2011 federal budget allocated $445 Million dollars to CPB. This represented 0.01 % of the federal budget, not even half a percent. In the same year we shipped 8 Billion dollars in “Aid” to Israel. Tell me again who is mooching?

              5. PBS has laudable editorial standards and practices, they seek to air programing that is non-commercial, non-partisan, and non-sectarian. The have clear rules to differentiate between opinion, fact, and news reporting. They have transparency and fairness policies and do not allow misleading or propaganda pieces. Go look it is right on their website, you can read them.

              6. If you want to talk about a disservice to the country and tax payers, you should investigate the FACT that newscorp (thats right Faux-News, the GOP darling) games the tax system.

              Between 2007 and 2011 they spent a staggering $27million on lobbyists, to “fix” tax legislation for them. Fox news effectively paid a 6% effective tax rate.
              http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/6796-focus-pay-your-taxes-murdoch

              How does Murdoch make money off the tax system? There are three basic elements, disclosure statements show.

              One is the aggressive use of intra-company transactions that globally allocate costs to locations that impose taxes — and profits to areas where profits can be earned tax-free.

              For that Murdoch can thank laws and treaties that treat multinational corporations much more generously than working stiffs, such as those who make up the audience for his New York Post and for his British tabloids with bare-breasted women. Working stiffs have their taxes taken out of their pay before they get it, while Murdoch gets to profit now and pay taxes by-and-by.
              News Corp. has 152 subsidiaries in tax havens, including 62 in the British Virgin Islands and 33 in the Caymans. Among the hundred largest U.S. companies, only Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have more tax haven subsidiaries than News Corp., a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office study found.

              News Corp. had nearly $7 billion permanently invested offshore in 2009, money on which it does not have to pay taxes unless it brings the money back to the United States. Meanwhile, it can use that money as collateral for loans in the United States, where interest paid is a tax-deductible expense.

              http://www.zerohedge.com/article/over-past-4-years-news-corp-generated-104-billion-profits-and-received-48-billion-taxes-irs

            2. Why, in the age of hundreds of channels, is one dollar of taxpayer money spent on PBS?

              I don’t want to fund their liberal point of view. It makes me mad that I’m forced to pay for their liberal propaganda.

            3. What part of Non-comercial, non-partisan, non-sectarian don’t you understand? Why should all Television be propaganda, trash and have no transparency?

              Let me put it another way, in 2010 News Corp (Faux-News) received 4.6 BILLION dollars from the federal government, because their paid government “representatives” built loopholes and helped them exploit it.

              In contrast $445 million was spent on public broadcasting.

              Tell me why news corp was able to go from a 46% tax rate to a 6% effective rate and why they should be allowed to extract 4.6 BILLION dollars from the government. It is an order of magnitude greater.

              Tell me again how mad you are for the supposed “liberal” programing. (remember Peggy Noonans show on PBS, she ain’t liberal chief) Faux-news on the other hand is nothing but a partisan, propaganda network with the worst accuracy and transparency in news today. How many taxpayers you think would be pissed to know how much they take from the taxpayer till, all through gaming the system.

        2. Clearly you are a partisan bot, a right-wing ideologue. Despite the inherit challenge in reaching through to you, I am going to give you some facts illustrating how absurd and untenable your position on this really is.

          1. The government money flows to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn awards grants to individual stations. http://www.cpb.org/funding/ A Board of Directors governs CPB, sets policy, and establishes programming priorities. The President of the United States appoints each member, who, after confirmation by the Senate, serves a six year term. The Board, in turn, appoints the president and chief executive officer, who then names the other corporate officers.

          2. PBS seeks to air programing that is non-partisan, non-commercial, and non-sectarian. They adhere to standards for transparency, accuracy, and fairness. They have clear rules against misleading the viewer or propagandizing them. They seek to clearly identify content, making important distinctions between commentary and news. (If only Fox News did the same)

          3. $445 Million is the TOTAL government contribution to CPB in 2011. The FY 2011 budget was $3.630 Trillion. Thus, it is 0.01225% of the total Federal budget. Yep, not even half of one percent.

          What else does the government buy with $445 Million?
          -7.8 weeks of foreign aid to Israel (We sent Israel $3 Billion in Fiscal Year 2012)
          -Not quite half of a B-2 bomber (about $1 Billion per aircraft)
          -40% of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer for the Navy (roughly $1.2 Billion per ship)
          -36 hours of the war in Afghanistan.

          I’d say that is a small price to pay for editorial integrity. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the standards at PBS, which are quite laudable:
          http://www-tc.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/35/PBS%20Editorial%20Standards%20and%20Policies.pdf

          I am particularly fond of these excerpts:

          “Fairness to the audience implies several responsibilities. Producers must neither oversimplify complex situations nor camouflage straightforward facts. PBS may reject a program or other content if PBS believes that it contains any unfair or misleading presentation of facts, including inaccurate statements of material fact, undocumented statements of fact that appear questionable on their face, misleading juxtapositions, misrepresentations, or distortions.”
          “To avoid misleading the public, producers also should adhere to the principles of transparency and honesty by providing appropriate labels, disclaimers, updates, or other information so that the public plainly understands what it is seeing. For example, content that includes commentary, points of view, or opinion should be appropriately identified, as should all sources of funding. Transparency also suggests producers maximize attribution of information and limit the use of anonymous sourcing to those cases when there is no alternative and the information is essential. Content that contains adult themes or other sensitive material should contain an appropriate disclosure.”

          And this:

          “Opinion and commentary are different from news and analysis. When a program, segment, digital material or other content is devoted to opinion or commentary, the principle of transparency requires that it be clearly labeled as such. Any content segment that presents only like-minded views without offering contrasting viewpoints should be considered opinion and should identify who is responsible for the views being presented.
          No content distributed by PBS should permit conscious manipulation of selected facts in order to propagandize.”

          In short, I think you want it to be another propaganda network like Faux-news, amplifying the partisan drivel and manipulation of weak minds like your own. An echo-chamber of stupid.

          This article delves into the Bush appointees to the CPB board in 2003 and their agenda to make PBS more right wing, it also highlights a number of conservative leaning programs that have historically been on PBS. http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/pbs-panders-to-right-with-new-programming/ It seems every six years the parties wrangle for control, how silly..

          So despite the constant crowing of you right-wingers, it turns out PBS has a great, balanced, reasonable, non-commercial agenda, despite sneaky, vindictive tactics by the GOP to make it otherwise.

          If you were less of a partisan and more of a citizen, you might be inclined to see that:

          A. PBS’s funding level is but a drop in the federal bucket.
          &
          B. Perhaps rules should be enacted to prohibit the partisan gaming of public television. I for one welcome, non-commercial, non-partisan, non-sectarian programing, especially when it is transparent, not-dumbed down, and not propaganda or disguised advertisement.

      1. No, I do not believe in taxpayer supported TV. Deal with it.

        And by the way, PBS vs. The Kardishians, Castle, and Judge Judy is a false choice. Those options do not even begin to exhaust the alternatives.

        If you were such a smart liberal, you would understand the concept of a fallacious argument. And yet, you don’t.

        1. Since you do not believe in tax-payer supported TV, will you be turning off Faux-News tonight? (see my post above)

          Fallacious is the perfect term for your argument that PBS is a Liberal network. It’s great that you have such a big word in your vocabulary, now how about using that brain of yours to get past the partisan blinders and admit that PBS is manipulated by both sides of the isle and that the 445 million isn’t likely where we should start looking for meat to cut from the federal budget.

          Why is it you only support corporate programing, with poorly defined editorial and content polices? Corporate programing which often is used to propagandize and mislead the viewer to serve some commercial or political interest? I thought right wingers were all about “local control”. That is exactly what PBS affiliates enjoy. Local control.

    2. To: Gary. Borismcguffin. GoeB.

      You keep bringing up the Liberal argument. And that argument doesn’t work for PBS. Most of PBS’s money comes from the PUBLIC. And big corporations that we all buy services/products from help fund that station as well. I want a example of why you don’t like PBS. And don’t say “because it’s funded by the taxpayer.” there are a lot of things as a taxpayer I wish my money didn’t go towards..but “you can’t always get what you want”

      So, I want an example. Either it be a television show, news broadcast, or some other form of media on the channel. Because that should be the indicator of whether PBS is garbage of not. because that was the whole reason I wrote a response in the first place. Because Boris said PBS was garbage. Thank you.

      1. You yourself said or agreed PBS is garbage or something to that end.

        I have articulated why that is so IMHO and will gladly back you up.

        But until then — in precise terms, please tell us how PBS is garbage in your opinion.

        Thank you.

  5. And sorry the next Apple TV remote better be WAY easier to use. For anyone whose fingers are larger than toothpicks it’s hit-and-miss.

    All that arrowing up, left, down, etc — and -make one mistake and it’s start all over!

    The tininess of the remote is overdone. make it iPhone sized but with a limited number of buttons (like 12 instead of the 88 buttons a typical TV remote has now) and I’ll be much happier.

    That remote just isn’t all that sexy and it is quite slippery and tiny; I actually hate using it. This coming from 1984+ Apple fan with all the trappings. and stock.

      1. The Remote app isn’t much better. You would think it would at least let you use the iPhone keyboard for searches, but no – you still have to arrow around to the letters onscreen and select that way. Not the experience you expect from Apple. That app needs an overhaul more so than the physical remote, imo.

        1. No, it lets you use the iPhone keyboard. Anytime a text box appears on screen, the phone should vibrate and the keyboard should come up. If that doesn’t happen, then something’s wrong. Either you haven’t navigated to the text box, or “show keyboard” has been unselected. somehow.

          ——RM

  6. Actually just put Siri or the like into it, or integrate it with a slick iPhone app and Siri.
    Entering things like emails, passwords, channel numbers, dates and all the rest is so cumbersome, but if I could mostly speak that stuff or somehow abbreviate it or gesture it.
    Anyone who enjoys arrowing all over the tiny letters on there Apple TV and then doing it again b/c of some stupid typo, let me know your secret. C’mon Apple the TV remote is so RIPE for an iPhone-style revolution, hope this current one is not indicative of the future.

  7. Sadly, Apple TV is very neglected here in the UK. It doesn’t even have an iPlayer app, pretty much essential. Hence it’s never going to take off as a living room box in the same way that Roku or the PS3 has.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.