I agree Time Warner is too expensive but there's no way legacy content would cost any more than original content.
Time Warner may be for sale again. Murdock just tried to buy them last year. Look for TW stock to rise. If Apple buys the TW Cable assets, and combines them with the studio, they will be able to reorganize the asset, sell of what they don't need to Murdock and other interested partners and keep the core original programming and catalogue offerings to compete with Amazon, Hulu and Netflix on all fronts. They don't even have to absorb it into Apple, but rather operate the way Pixar did with Jobs siting on the boards of both companies.
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.
Only because I don't think Jimmy Iovine was worth $3B and they got Beats at its peak. From Cook's earnings call commentary if anything Beats revenue is on the decline.
I agree Time Warner is too expensive but there's no way legacy content would cost any more than original content.
Time Warner may be for sale again. Murdock just tried to buy them last year. Look for TW stock to rise. If Apple buys the TW Cable assets, and combines them with the studio, they will be able to reorganize the asset, sell of what they don't need to Murdock and other interested partners and keep the core original programming and catalogue offerings to compete with Amazon, Hulu and Netflix on all fronts. They don't even have to absorb it into Apple, but rather operate the way Pixar did with Jobs siting on the boards of both companies.
And who at Apple is going to manage all that? Eddy Cue? Yeah no.
Time Warner may be for sale again. Murdock just tried to buy them last year. Look for TW stock to rise. If Apple buys the TW Cable assets, and combines them with the studio, they will be able to reorganize the asset, sell of what they don't need to Murdock and other interested partners and keep the core original programming and catalogue offerings to compete with Amazon, Hulu and Netflix on all fronts. They don't even have to absorb it into Apple, but rather operate the way Pixar did with Jobs siting on the boards of both companies.
And who at Apple is going to manage all that? Eddy Cue? Yeah no.
Likely an existing executive from TW or somebody else with experience in the industry. Or do you assume that this type of acquisition wouldn't come with any new employees? Why do you suggest that it has to be an existing Apple employee?
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.
They just added the podcast app to the AppleTV. No reason there can't be video podcasts.
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_______________.
Since when has YouTube been for sale?
Everything is for sale at the right price & right currency :-)
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.
... 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.
Might you expand on what "head start" the $3,000,000,000 spent on Beats got them?
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_______________.
$30/mo for a "skinny bundle" won't be competitive in Europe. Maybe $15. One can get a skinny satellite bundle for €10/mo.
I don't understand why anything has to be a bundle at all? Why not charge $1.99/month per channel?
Because it's a pipe dream to think you could get ala carte channels for $1.99/mo. Some have suggested that a stand alone ESPN offering would cost $80/mo alone.
And who at Apple is going to manage all that? Eddy Cue? Yeah no.
Likely an existing executive from TW or somebody else with experience in the industry. Or do you assume that this type of acquisition wouldn't come with any new employees? Why do you suggest that it has to be an existing Apple employee?
I think it's a dumb idea and would completely distract Apple, a company already with A LOT of irons in the fire. If Apple has to come up with predictable recurring revenue streams then start selling all their hardware on installment plans. Do iPhone upgrade for iPad, Watch and Mac.
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.
Only because I don't think Jimmy Iovine was worth $3B and they got Beats at its peak. From Cook's earnings call commentary if anything Beats revenue is on the decline.
Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion. From what I could tell, the Beats division is lumped in with the 'other' category which as a whole was on the rise. Unless they've broken out the figures then I'm not sure how you can tell how much of this was split between products.
And I'm speaking as someone who's never really understood the Beats deal anyway.
... 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.
Might you expand on what "head start" the $3,000,000,000 spent on Beats got them?
A leg up in music streaming and a hardware business that raked in $1.5billion in revenues just before Apple bought it.
Even without the music streaming, the hardware side makes it a sensible buy. For the customer base that Apple is aiming for (the young, the hip and the tone deaf1), Beats is the choice gear.
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.
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'm surprised it has taken them this long. Original/exclusive content would be another incentive to buy Apple products and services. And unlike network TV, Apple doesn't have to care about satisfying advertisers with adequate ratings. I doubt Netflix and Amazon care a whole lot about how well an individual show performs. Original content simply sweetens the deal and gets more people to subscribe to the service.
I don't understand why anything has to be a bundle at all? Why not charge $1.99/month per channel?
Because it's a pipe dream to think you could get ala carte channels for $1.99/mo. Some have suggested that a stand alone ESPN offering would cost $80/mo alone.
That's why I want a la carte. Let ESPN live without subsidy from millions of people who don't want it but currently pay for it in their bundles.
We cancelled cable about 10 years ago. We just watched DVDs for a couple years and then went with Amazon prime, Netflix. Currently have Acorn. Sometimes watch drama fever, etc. already no need for cable. But there are some individual channels we might like to have. Mostly though, tuning it at some time to watch a show is archaic. Video on demand is much better
I don't understand why anything has to be a bundle at all? Why not charge $1.99/month per channel?
Because it's a pipe dream to think you could get ala carte channels for $1.99/mo. Some have suggested that a stand alone ESPN offering would cost $80/mo alone.
Only because I don't think Jimmy Iovine was worth $3B and they got Beats at its peak. From Cook's earnings call commentary if anything Beats revenue is on the decline.
Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion. From what I could tell, the Beats division is lumped in with the 'other' category which as a whole was on the rise. Unless they've broken out the figures then I'm not sure how you can tell how much of this was split between products.
And I'm speaking as someone who's never really understood the Beats deal anyway.
I don't know about this past quarter but in previous quarters Apple's CFO has said the increase in "other" revenue is more than 100% due to Watch which would mean other stuff is actually declining. Of course I can't say for sure the decline includes Beats headphones but Apple sure doesn't seem to spend much time promoting Beats or mentioning it in earnings call commentary.
Because it's a pipe dream to think you could get ala carte channels for $1.99/mo. Some have suggested that a stand alone ESPN offering would cost $80/mo alone.
Why would an ESPN channel alone cost $80/month?
I don't know the economics of ESPN but one Wall Street analyst pegged an ESPN standalone package (that included ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN U etc.) at around $80/mo.
Comments
And who at Apple is going to manage all that? Eddy Cue? Yeah no.
Might you expand on what "head start" the $3,000,000,000 spent on Beats got them?
Because it's a pipe dream to think you could get ala carte channels for $1.99/mo. Some have suggested that a stand alone ESPN offering would cost $80/mo alone.
I think it's a dumb idea and would completely distract Apple, a company already with A LOT of irons in the fire. If Apple has to come up with predictable recurring revenue streams then start selling all their hardware on installment plans. Do iPhone upgrade for iPad, Watch and Mac.
Really? How did you arrive at that conclusion. From what I could tell, the Beats division is lumped in with the 'other' category which as a whole was on the rise. Unless they've broken out the figures then I'm not sure how you can tell how much of this was split between products.
And I'm speaking as someone who's never really understood the Beats deal anyway.
A leg up in music streaming and a hardware business that raked in $1.5billion in revenues just before Apple bought it.
Even without the music streaming, the hardware side makes it a sensible buy. For the customer base that Apple is aiming for (the young, the hip and the tone deaf1), Beats is the choice gear.
1Speaking as a bad-tempered elderly person.
I'm surprised it has taken them this long. Original/exclusive content would be another incentive to buy Apple products and services. And unlike network TV, Apple doesn't have to care about satisfying advertisers with adequate ratings. I doubt Netflix and Amazon care a whole lot about how well an individual show performs. Original content simply sweetens the deal and gets more people to subscribe to the service.
We cancelled cable about 10 years ago. We just watched DVDs for a couple years and then went with Amazon prime, Netflix. Currently have Acorn. Sometimes watch drama fever, etc. already no need for cable. But there are some individual channels we might like to have. Mostly though, tuning it at some time to watch a show is archaic. Video on demand is much better
I don't know the economics of ESPN but one Wall Street analyst pegged an ESPN standalone package (that included ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN U etc.) at around $80/mo.