I'm not sure. The show has to be good enough for people to buy an AppleTV to watch it. Not many shows are that good. We're talking about Apple growing services and being less dependent on hardware, right? So wouldn't it make more sense to have the service available for everybody but have the AppleTV be the superior device to watch on? Maybe AppleTV would have a show app with interactive features or something to differentiate from other devices?
The "show" you say but Apple has enough money, like I said, to have multiple shows/movies/etc in production simultaneously. Literally channels worth of new content. Kids shows, horror movies, action shows, documentaries, craft clips, cooking you name it. Making it the "new cable" at whatever price point they wish(most likely $30-50 a month.) This is way beyond the handful of exclusive content Netflix and others offer.
I don't believe letting people with SammyPads, android phones and FireTV devices watch Apple content is good. Hardware makes tons of money and Apple wants the whole experience from hardware to software. Watching Apple shows on a crap iKnockoff that loses money per unit sold doesn't make sense. Hulu and other's don't make hardware so they don't care what you're watching it on.
With AppleTV you'll have access to Apple's content and if you want Netflix you can have that too. The Apple content would be a huge differientiator and when Apple starts making a profit off this, you'll then see a huge amount of content enough to compete against Comcast.
If Apple needs predictable recurring revenue streams then let's get Apple as a service. Give people the ability to choose to pay a monthly fee for Apple devices and services. Give us the iPhone upgrade program for all of Apple's hardware.
You make a good point about Apple's reliance on the iPhone. I share your confidence in Apple's leadership, I'm still invested. Not saying Apple shouldn't do this, but original programming is risky. Most new network shows such, distinguishing one's product with something that sucks is a potential problem. Amazon and Netflix have done very well with original programming, but it wasn't obvious (to me at least) that it would turn out that way. Amazon and Netflix are also different from Apple in that the programming is available on just about any device - you only need to pay for the streaming service. I don't think that's the route Apple would take and success would be harder to achieve.
I share your opinion that this direction isn't necessarily the best for Apple. It isn't that they couldn't execute it - I assume they would be handling the production out to the "professionals" - where Apple decides on the type of content they want & pays for it while managing to timelines & cost. Not unlike how Netflix does it. But I don't think Apple could do nearly as well as Netflix - this is NFLX bread & butter, they have the detailed viewership details built over years on streaming with a subscription (likely many times more data than Apple from iTunes rentals & purchases). And to get the most out of content, you have to be on many platforms to maximize viewership & subscription or advertising (and we know Apple isn't interested in the latter). Not many content companies are rolling in the dough (Disney perhaps exception).
In other words, it is likely to be a loss-leader approach to selling more devices. Nothing wrong with that, but it can be achieved in the same way by licensing content exclusively, or just more of it.
Apple has the money to do many things...choosing the best ones is the hard part.
I've been charting Apples efforts towards developing recurring service cash flows for many years now. Jobs recognized this and I think was always looking for opportunities to smooth out some of the ride of the product cycles, but only if they aligned very tightly with Apple core products and strengths. For all that early attention, I've always been a bit surprised that it's taken them a while to get super robust iCloud services rolled out. They've been improving obviously, but have a lot further to go. As for original programing, they've got their toe in the water now with Beat 1. I think original video would be a worthy area to explore, I'm sure they've been looking at it for a while. Good time to commit to launching a variety of offerings for the fall and also to get some exclusives on foreign/independent (Sundance) made content. If the quality is good, it's an excellent talking point, marketing hook, and differentiator. I think that it has worked well for Amazon along those lines, it's a valid way to boost interest in AppleTV. Even if it doesn't make money, it boosts the ecosystem.
Beats 1 isn't necessarily original content in the pure sense - the music is licensed - the original part are the DJ's. Quite a bit different from determining which TV content to produce in terms of new series. Netflix has a HUGE lead in this area & been doing it for years - building upon over a decade of data on consumer preferences. Apple does have iTunes purchases and rentals data on consumer interests, but the amount of content viewed per user (as we can see from the streaming data) is an order of magnitude less.
And to level set - NFLX stock is worth a lot, but the company's revenue and earnings are peanuts compared to Apple (for those that think making content will at all move the needle for Apple on its own). Content for Apple would just be a driver for purchasing h/w, and they need a lot of content to make that happen.
Better off doing some strong partnerships with Disney and Time Warner IMO.
Why are you guys talking like it's either one or the other???
The beauty of it all is that you still have CHOICE. You think Apple content will suddenly remove Netflix/Hulu from the app store?
If you think Netflix is doing good imagine how much more Apple could do? Heck most movies and shows are MADE on Apple devices. Also cellphone manufacturers had a WAY WAY longer lead than Netflix has, so let's let that die.
In my opinion, Netflix is doing NOTHING new as far as original content goes. Thier approach is no different from content providers of the 1950's.
This is good time to bring up the subject of Apple’s obvious reliance on iPhone sales for the bulk of its income. Do you really think the upper management of Apple doesn’t already know they have to diversify because the iPhone won’t always be the cash cow. The Apple II line was the cash cow while the Macintosh was being developed. The only question is whether, not if, that diversification happens internally or by buying it on the open market. I for one have full confidence that Apple’s leadership is not the blockheads some on AI make them out to be.
Simply because the iPhone is insanely profitable doesn't mean Apple isn't diversified. They're more diversified than Microsoft or Google for income. Even if the iPhone didn't exist, for example, all of their other products would generate more profit than Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Intel, HP or Dell..
To be successful, I think Apple needs to find an individual with a vision. The next Kubrick, Coppola, or Wells. iTunes houses music, movies, TV, and Podcasts, the latter being a content modality that is widely popular, but not a multi-billion dollar business like each of the other three categories.
The movie going experience in a theater sucks. I *much* prefer waiting so I can avoid it. People talk about the "big screen expereince" but I find it over rated compared to what you must endure.
TV is vastly changed from how it was traditionally delivered. Almost all "shows" are actually written with "acts" to be interspersed with commercials. The VCR and TiVo killed that. I never "tune in" to actually watch something in this genre. DVD or digital delivery is far, far superior.
Music used to be mostly radio delivered, again interspersed with commercials. Yes, records go back to Edison and the old victrola, and that experience in the home is essentially unchaged (albeit with quantum leaps in quality and delivery, including mobile options taking the place of radio.)
PodCasting is the first foray into personal publishing via audio/visual. I am continually amused by local news soliciting "see something happening? Share it with us <twitter> <facebook>" So my content can go up on a local news outlet that makes money from it? Please. Honestly, I don't watch local news for news, and I have no interest in doing your job for you.
So the next visionary is tasked with this: what do people wish to consume and how? Is passive entertainment still what people want? When given the choice of watching network TV, and scrolling through 4 hours of skateboarding cats on YouTube...the latter is scoring huge numbers of eyeballs.
Maybe Apple wants to make a way for smaller content makers (using iPhones and Apple devices to produce) to monetize and deliver on a huge platform? No idea.
This is good time to bring up the subject of Apple’s obvious reliance on iPhone sales for the bulk of its income. Do you really think the upper management of Apple doesn’t already know they have to diversify because the iPhone won’t always be the cash cow. The Apple II line was the cash cow while the Macintosh was being developed. The only question is whether, not if, that diversification happens internally or by buying it on the open market. I for one have full confidence that Apple’s leadership is not the blockheads some on AI make them out to be.
Simply because the iPhone is insanely profitable doesn't mean Apple isn't diversified. They're more diversified than Microsoft or Google for income. Even if the iPhone didn't exist, for example, all of their other products would generate more profit than Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Intel, HP or Dell..
What sucks for Apple is on the one hand people are fretting about iPhone and concerned that Apple is too dependent on it and on the other they say Apple is doing too much and need to focus because quality is suffering. For example I just finished listening to the latest Jay Yarrow/Fareed Manzoo (sp?) podcast and they spent the majority of the show talking about iPhone and where does Apple go next (TVs, cars etc.) but then at the end of the show they're all concerned that Apple is doing too much, needs to say no more, why did they do Apple Music and Apple News etc. one minute it's where's the new stuff and what's next Apple, the next minute it's why are you doing this and that Apple. Cook & Co. can't win.
This is good time to bring up the subject of Apple’s obvious reliance on iPhone sales for the bulk of its income. Do you really think the upper management of Apple doesn’t already know they have to diversify because the iPhone won’t always be the cash cow. The Apple II line was the cash cow while the Macintosh was being developed. The only question is whether, not if, that diversification happens internally or by buying it on the open market. I for one have full confidence that Apple’s leadership is not the blockheads some on AI make them out to be.
Hardly the ONLY question. I really don't care if they buy the diversification or build it - just make sure it WORKS profitably.
This is good time to bring up the subject of Apple’s obvious reliance on iPhone sales for the bulk of its income.
considering the nearly one-third of their income that isnt iphone sales is bigger than many other giants of the industry, im not so sure "reliance" is the right word. even the lagging ipad business is great business.
Cue can't get the projects he has working properly. What makes anyone think he'll be successful with this?
BINGO on that point - Cue is one of the executives who needs to be replaced - can't get the job done.
If Apple can't close the contracts for changing the tv game they need to create or contract the content.
Think about the $100,000,000,000 wasted on capital return - possible purchases could have been: YouTube or Vimeo or Netflix or add you thought_______________.
This is good time to bring up the subject of Apple’s obvious reliance on iPhone sales for the bulk of its income. Do you really think the upper management of Apple doesn’t already know they have to diversify because the iPhone won’t always be the cash cow. The Apple II line was the cash cow while the Macintosh was being developed. The only question is whether, not if, that diversification happens internally or by buying it on the open market. I for one have full confidence that Apple’s leadership is not the blockheads some on AI make them out to be.
Simply because the iPhone is insanely profitable doesn't mean Apple isn't diversified. They're more diversified than Microsoft or Google for income. Even if the iPhone didn't exist, for example, all of their other products would generate more profit than Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Intel, HP or Dell..
bingo. wheres the "concern" for facebook or google for the single-basket of ad revenue? what if it dries up? heavens.
Simply because the iPhone is insanely profitable doesn't mean Apple isn't diversified. They're more diversified than Microsoft or Google for income. Even if the iPhone didn't exist, for example, all of their other products would generate more profit than Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Intel, HP or Dell..
What sucks for Apple is on the one hand people are fretting about iPhone and concerned that Apple is too dependent on it and on the other they say Apple is doing too much and need to focus because quality is suffering. For example I just finished listening to the latest Jay Yarrow/Fareed Manzoo (sp?) podcast and they spent the majority of the show talking about iPhone and where does Apple go next (TVs, cars etc.) but then at the end of the show they're all concerned that Apple is doing too much, needs to say no more, why did they do Apple Music and Apple News etc. one minute it's where's the new stuff and what's next Apple, the next minute it's why are you doing this and that Apple. Cook & Co. can't win.
yep. next thing you know theyll be bagging on apple for getting into the billion-dollar headphones business, when they bought leading manufacturer Beats. smirk...
Cue can't get the projects he has working properly. What makes anyone think he'll be successful with this?
BINGO on that point - Cue is one of the executives who needs to be replaced - can't get the job done.
If Apple can't close the contracts for changing the tv game they need to create or contract the content.
Think about the $100,000,000,000 wasted on capital return - possible purchases could have been: YouTube or Vimeo or Netflix or add you thought_______________.
What sucks for Apple is on the one hand people are fretting about iPhone and concerned that Apple is too dependent on it and on the other they say Apple is doing too much and need to focus because quality is suffering. For example I just finished listening to the latest Jay Yarrow/Fareed Manzoo (sp?) podcast and they spent the majority of the show talking about iPhone and where does Apple go next (TVs, cars etc.) but then at the end of the show they're all concerned that Apple is doing too much, needs to say no more, why did they do Apple Music and Apple News etc. one minute it's where's the new stuff and what's next Apple, the next minute it's why are you doing this and that Apple. Cook & Co. can't win.
yep. next thing you know theyll be bagging on apple for getting into the billion-dollar headphones business, when they bought leading manufacturer Beats. smirk...
Apple's a "one trick pony" but then when they try not to be and do other stuff they're accused of not focusing and losing the "high ground" on quality. Can't win.
...they have to diversify because the iPhone won’t always be the cash cow.
That's not necessarily true. You state it like it is a foregone conclusion that the iPhone business will one day collapse. It's not. As long as they don't become complacent - and they continue to innovate, advance the platform and create compelling reasons for consumers to upgrade regularly - there is no reason they can't maintain their crown and the revenue that comes with it.
Having said that - yes - they do need to diversify - but it's not because one day their smartphone business is destined to collapse. They need to do so in order to keep their business growing and to ease investor fears re: a possible collapse in the iPhone business.
If Netflix or Amazon can produce shows than anyone of Apple's size/caliber can do. May be that is a place to start and than buy part of Time Warner.
For some reason people think Apple can't compete with them even though Netflix/Amazon only have a handful of shows. Like I said earlier, Apple has the money to make channels worth of shows/movies and Netflix/Hulu/Amazon are STILL available on Apple devices.
As far as purchasing Netflix, I think it's too late. The only reason I see Apple buying them is to get a head start(like Beats). Otherwise Apple doesn't NEED them. Time Warner is too expensive by the way but you'd be a fool to believe it wouldn't help and it'll probably take over a decade to make up money lost on the acquisition. Sounds too risky.
yep. next thing you know theyll be bagging on apple for getting into the billion-dollar headphones business, when they bought leading manufacturer Beats. smirk...
Apple's a "one trick pony" but then when they try not to be and do other stuff they're accused of not focusing and losing the "high ground" on quality. Can't win.
indeed. however my joke was that youre one of their critics when it comes to the Beats acquisition -- a healthy, profitable business that physically dovetails into their primary product.
Comments
I don't believe letting people with SammyPads, android phones and FireTV devices watch Apple content is good. Hardware makes tons of money and Apple wants the whole experience from hardware to software. Watching Apple shows on a crap iKnockoff that loses money per unit sold doesn't make sense. Hulu and other's don't make hardware so they don't care what you're watching it on.
With AppleTV you'll have access to Apple's content and if you want Netflix you can have that too. The Apple content would be a huge differientiator and when Apple starts making a profit off this, you'll then see a huge amount of content enough to compete against Comcast.
Why are you guys talking like it's either one or the other???
The beauty of it all is that you still have CHOICE. You think Apple content will suddenly remove Netflix/Hulu from the app store?
If you think Netflix is doing good imagine how much more Apple could do? Heck most movies and shows are MADE on Apple devices. Also cellphone manufacturers had a WAY WAY longer lead than Netflix has, so let's let that die.
In my opinion, Netflix is doing NOTHING new as far as original content goes. Thier approach is no different from content providers of the 1950's.
The movie going experience in a theater sucks. I *much* prefer waiting so I can avoid it. People talk about the "big screen expereince" but I find it over rated compared to what you must endure.
TV is vastly changed from how it was traditionally delivered. Almost all "shows" are actually written with "acts" to be interspersed with commercials. The VCR and TiVo killed that. I never "tune in" to actually watch something in this genre. DVD or digital delivery is far, far superior.
Music used to be mostly radio delivered, again interspersed with commercials. Yes, records go back to Edison and the old victrola, and that experience in the home is essentially unchaged (albeit with quantum leaps in quality and delivery, including mobile options taking the place of radio.)
PodCasting is the first foray into personal publishing via audio/visual. I am continually amused by local news soliciting "see something happening? Share it with us <twitter> <facebook>" So my content can go up on a local news outlet that makes money from it? Please. Honestly, I don't watch local news for news, and I have no interest in doing your job for you.
So the next visionary is tasked with this: what do people wish to consume and how? Is passive entertainment still what people want? When given the choice of watching network TV, and scrolling through 4 hours of skateboarding cats on YouTube...the latter is scoring huge numbers of eyeballs.
Maybe Apple wants to make a way for smaller content makers (using iPhones and Apple devices to produce) to monetize and deliver on a huge platform? No idea.
BINGO on that point - Cue is one of the executives who needs to be replaced - can't get the job done.
If Apple can't close the contracts for changing the tv game they need to create or contract the content.
Think about the $100,000,000,000 wasted on capital return - possible purchases could have been: YouTube or Vimeo or Netflix or add you thought_______________.
yep. next thing you know theyll be bagging on apple for getting into the billion-dollar headphones business, when they bought leading manufacturer Beats. smirk...
Having said that - yes - they do need to diversify - but it's not because one day their smartphone business is destined to collapse. They need to do so in order to keep their business growing and to ease investor fears re: a possible collapse in the iPhone business.
As far as purchasing Netflix, I think it's too late. The only reason I see Apple buying them is to get a head start(like Beats). Otherwise Apple doesn't NEED them.
Time Warner is too expensive by the way but you'd be a fool to believe it wouldn't help and it'll probably take over a decade to make up money lost on the acquisition. Sounds too risky.