With the 2016 March Madness college basketball tournament set to begin on March 15, the NCAA has updated its March Madness app with new features for iOS, the fourth-generation Apple TV and Apple Watch.
/article-new/2016/03/march-madness-apple-tv-app.jpg?lossy)
The brand new Apple TV app comes with a significant feature for basketball fans: the ability to watch two games side-by-side in a split-screen interface. The feature, which is exclusive to Apple TV, also allows users to switch the audio from both the games, allowing basketball fans to hone in on exciting matches easier than before. Lisa Estrin, NCAA Digital's senior UX lead, told Variety that the Apple TV was the "perfect" platform for the feature.
"We believe Apple TV is the perfect platform to experiment with this and bring the two together in a shared environment," said Lisa Estrin, senior UX lead, NCAA Digital, at a Los Angeles showcase for Apple TV apps hosted by Apple earlier this week. "We look forward to more collaboration in the future."
The iOS version of the app received several new features, including AirPlay and Google Cast support. In addition to multitasking support, iPad users will also see a redesigned version of the app with an "immersive" new experience that features a new game timeline, up-to-the-minute stats and curated highlights from Twitter and Instagram. The March Madness app has also been made available for Apple Watch, allowing users to receive alerts for their favorite teams and quick access to scores and the tournament schedule.
All versions of the NCAA March Madness app require logging in with TV provider credentials to stream games.
NCAA March Madness for iOS is available in the App Store for free. [Direct Link]
Update: Games broadcast on CBS cannot be live streamed through the March Madness app even after cable authentication.
Top Rated Comments
We need to break the back of the cable monopoly, which is exactly this: if you just want to see content, you have to pay their fees. The provider of content should have the ability to collect money from you and the cable companies, or to have an agreement to accept funding by advertising and be free to show their property in whatever venue. Yes, this is exactly what a monopoly is: the pipe says it owns the content which it didn't finance. Uh-uh. In the '40s, the federal government broke up the studio's wholly-owned cinema chains for the same reasons. The MGM Theaters were showing only MGM, and nobody could show anything else. Capitol Theaters, etc., all were owned by the studios. (With some control by the mob, too.) So the guy with the movie house franchise in Chicago had to play the studio's content, no matter if it was a hit or not.
Breathe Swift, breathe. Your post is all over the place and making little sense. Cable companies own a lot of the content so they're more than just a pipe. In many cases they are the content provider as well. Bolded: Your quote assumes content providers can't show their property through whatever avenue they choose. They can. They choose to show their content through avenues that... sit down for this... pay them the most money. It's the reason they create content. They don't do it for your enjoyment. They do it for the money. Same reason Apple sells their products. Same for any company. It's something cord cutters seem to either not understand or completely ignore. In the grand scheme, they offer no value to anyone but themselves. When cord cutters can provide monetary incentive to any content provider they may start to see some of the things on their wish list. Right now they don't bring anything to the table. Why would any company want to deal with small incremental payments when they're currently getting very large payments from advertisers and cable companies.We need to break the back of the cable monopoly, which is exactly this: if you just want to see content, you have to pay their fees. The provider of content should have the ability to collect money from you and the cable companies, or to have an agreement to accept funding by advertising and be free to show their property in whatever venue. Yes, this is exactly what a monopoly is: the pipe says it owns the content which it didn't finance. Uh-uh. In the '40s, the federal government broke up the studio's wholly-owned cinema chains for the same reasons. The MGM Theaters were showing only MGM, and nobody could show anything else. Capitol Theaters, etc., all were owned by the studios. (With some control by the mob, too.) So the guy with the movie house franchise in Chicago had to play the studio's content, no matter if it was a hit or not.
Find a way for content owners and distributors to make the same or more money with a new model. Or just pay up.