Eddy Cue: Apple not trying to compete with Netflix or Comcast, seeking to be a delivery platform in

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
In an interview published on Thursday, Eddy Cue -- Apple's senior VP of Internet Software and Services -- dismissed any interest in the company creating its own TV shows, and addressed other topics like "skinny" channel bundles and a rumored interest in buying Time Warner.




Speaking with the Hollywood Reporter, Cue answered a series of questions about Apple's role in media, and upcoming purchases in the space. Regarding Apple's focus, Cue said that "We all consume and love the stuff that Hollywood does. We just didn't always love it in the way that they got it to us. So, what we could do is really make it easier for their customers, their fans, to be able to consume content in a much better way."

Cue believes that the Apple TV in its current incarnation "gives content providers the ability to do things that are interactive, which they've never had." At the same time, he said that Apple overall is "trying to do is build the platform that allows anybody to get content to consumers."

Customers have been looking to Apple for "a la carte" programming choices -- but Cue is not a fan of the concept. He commented that "most people, at the end of the day, end up paying more, not less, for the things they love. With TV content being at an all-time high, why are people asking for less?"

The executive added that people are seeking so-called "skinny bundles" because they're not getting the features they want from modern media delivery and content producers. Related to this, he pointed to existing TV interfaces as archaic, and wondered why voice search, like that on the Apple TV, isn't more widely available in the broadcast industry's presentation to customers, which would solve the problem of finding desired content and filtering everything else out.

Apple's conversations with the broadcast and media industries started with co-founder Steve Jobs. According to Cue, Jobs pushed him how to "appreciate and learn a little bit more about how that side of the business worked." In the Hollywood Reporter interview, Cue drew parallels between how media production and Silicon Valley work, as both industries demand creativity from workers in the field, with Apple allgedly being the first company to see it that way.

Cue denied that Apple is interested in a great deal of unique programming, saying that the company's focus in this regard is Apple Music and "we are only going into the content business [with projects] that we think are really tied to our products." He added that "we're not in the business of trying to create TV shows," and that Apple's focus as a delivery platform means that it's "not trying to compete with Netflix or compete with Comcast."

Regarding the recently announced Planet of the Apps series, Cue said that "we felt like there were things that [the producer] wanted to do in the show that, if we helped him with it, it would be way better or only possible if we did it. And that's the reason we got involved, because we actually think we bring something to the table."

Specifically denied in the interview are any current intentions for a Dr. Dre TV show, a purchase of a Hollywood studio, or a Time Warner acquisition. Cue is rumored to have raised the idea of a Time Warner buyout in 2015, but talks supposedly died early on.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member
    I could be wrong, but it sounds a lot like every single bundling deal, skinny, fat or attractively buxom, has fallen through. 


    repressthis
  • Reply 2 of 42
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,476member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I could be wrong, but it sounds a lot like every single bundling deal, skinny, fat or attractively buxom, has fallen through. 



    yeah he is sending a public signal to the Media market that Apple is not the threat they think it is. Apple could be since they have more money than anyone and could buy up what they like.
    edited July 2016 palomine
  • Reply 3 of 42
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 648member
    Being a delivery device makes the most sense. Keeping it simple.  
    jbdragonlolliver
  • Reply 4 of 42
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,603member
    AppleTV is providing a compelling platform for content delivery as it gets better every day.
    Focusing on the platform makes sense because that is where Apple can really make a difference.

    Tell your cable company that you don't want their STB rental anymore.


    jbdragonlolliver
  • Reply 5 of 42
    Apple cannot buy Time Warner, when Charter already acquired TWC and completed the deal.  If it was a rumor in 2015, why mention it in the article?  I don't want to rely on the internet for watching TV.  There are times when internet service is down, but I can still watch TV.  Or if the internet is having network issues, I don't want to have a degraded picture or a spinning wheel waiting to buffer data.
  • Reply 6 of 42
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,199member
    Shame. I quite liked the idea of Apple creating their own content. With all that cash floating about, it seemed a good place to spend it. 
    I have to wonder if strategically stepping back and being a 'delivery platform' is a good idea. What's to stop a rival company dominating the content wars then producing their own 'delivery platform' but at a massive discount (or free) due to all the lucrative subscriptions they get.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    timbittimbit Posts: 331member
    I would pay $20-$30 per month to have unlimited access to Apple's vast movie database, instead of having to rent each individual movie. Netflix doesn't have the most up to date content like Apple does. Would love to see a subscription service by Apple
    cyberzombieentropyspropod
  • Reply 8 of 42
    razormaidrazormaid Posts: 299member
    Now they can focus on those windmill farms and solar panels for India. I don't have any problem with donating to companies who want to do these things but when I read an artticje about apples next big money maker is making and setting up solarfarms for companies I just about lost it. 

    Does anyone at Apple innovate any more?  Or are we doomed to "we may have been the last company to do it but we did it right" from now on?  Geez when I see some of the kickstarter things and all the software APP innovations in the App Store I feel like Apple just wants to be the hardware delivery system for everything - phone too. 

    Why not retire ole' Eddy"I've run out of ideas"Cue and put someone in that's wants to kick some innovation ass. I hear from other beta testers how Apple is more beaurcratic than Washington regarding listening to new ideas and implementing them. If you're new and have ideas they ask you to please take your seat over in the corner. 

    Come on guys get back into the game. Be the "we developed it first AND did it right" company not last to the party. 

    And nothing against Tim Cook personally but this guy is much more into social injustice and saving the polar bears that kicking ass at Apple. It's like "I have really old people in charge so I'll go attend a gay right rally" and after lunch maybe I will Free Willy. Enough all ready with the activist crap. How about you can't do anymore activists things till you reinvent the laptop. That would put a fire under his ass. We've have something new by next week lol 

    edited July 2016 monstrosityandrewmacmasterentropys[Deleted User]
  • Reply 9 of 42
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,603member
    Video content providers are very different globally.  
    The music industry is more sane and easier to work with.

    AppleTV needs to provide the absolute best platform for content delivery.
    Once Apple has the momentum, content providers that don't use it will lose.

    No more forcing fat bundles down people's throats.
    Death to STB rentals.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    Yeah the F1 bid is bunk just as I predicted. The SEC should investigate these leaks.

    The sad news about Apple not being able to convince for a TV bundle deal is it culls the opportunity for a future subsidised TV product. The way I see it, over the next 10 years TVs become so good and Google is on so many of them by default I fail to see how Apple can compete. If we assume that everyone gets a new TV every 10 years and everyone had a 2 year old TV now that means inside of 10 years everyone has a new smart TV with features more than adequate for the average family.

    Sure I paint a picture that aligns with my argument nicely, but there is a point in there. When smart TVs become good enough and people are buying them they negate the need for an add-on box. I fail to see how Apple can avoid needing to have a TV display product to remain competitive in that market. As it is each Chromecast devices is one less ATV and I see lots of CC sales out there. The logical conclusion is why would Apple wait before launching their TV, even if it means as a full-priced device. And continue to sell the box for those who want another TV or already have a TV. Apple's TV could have perks over the box such larger hard disk and faster processors etc. They could even in an un-Apple manner offer the ability to upgrade some of the innards as part of an investment plan of sorts.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 11 of 42
    "Death to STB rentals."

    Yeah, DirecTV tried that once and they were hacked. DirecTV *already tried* to create an open platform for multiple manufacturers of DSS satellite receivers. What they found out was that hackers compromised the system; and when there's a flaw in the system, people will get programming for free.

    At one point in time, it was estimated that 1/4 of all set-top boxes that were compatible with DirecTV and manufactured by RCA, Sony, Magnavox, Samsung and others were actually receiving service for free. Another the problems were that people in Canada were receiving signals for free in areas where they didn't have a license or broadcast rights.

    As a result, precedent was set; cable companies and broadcasters have to contain their signal; and they could be held liable for breaches; copyright holders can sue the distributor. As a result, DirecTV ultimately had to reel in satellite set-top receiver business to something they manufacture in-house.

    Apple platforms can be hacked; today, there are still jailbroken iPhones, iPads, jailbroken AppleTV set-top boxes, and hackintoshes communities still exist.  All these hackers do is compromise Apple platforms.  So yeah, I seriously think Apple should get into this business.  It will open up legal challenges to the gates of hell where Steve Jobs is sitting to the right-hand of lucifer, waving from his easy-chair, watching TV with a tub of popcorn.   After all, Apple's first product, the Apple I computer was priced at $666.

    I just don't see how anyone can reasonably think this would work.  These days, SmartTVs can do everything that would normally require a set-top box would.  Apple is too late and their platforms aren't secure.   The other problem is that Apple would need a presence across the globe to enforce US Copyright law and prosecute piracy and signal theft.
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 12 of 42
    Apple is performing like Microsoft in this area. They better get their act together before it's too late. Sling TV is where it's at.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    We just didn't always love it in the way that they got it to us. So, what we could do is really make it easier for their customers, their fans, to be able to consume content in a much better way.
    For years, Apple has had the technology to deliver live events, pre-recorded TV shows, and movies to all screen sizes.
    The Apple Music Festival is a prime example of live streaming.  A brilliant proof-of-concept.
    Apple is ready to disrupt legacy content distribution.  And the legacy players all know it.

    Sure, Apple can and will produce their own content. 
    But don't forget the old Hollywood saying:

    "Content is king.  But distribution is King Kong."
  • Reply 14 of 42
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    "Death to STB rentals."

    The problem of course, is that some bean counter in Philadelphia (where Comcast is based) probably gave a presentation. That Comcast schmuck probably said to the CEO at the time- "We can shift cable box expenditures. Instead of being a 'Cost-to-do-business' we can charge customers for them in perpetuity." 
    This happens because the legacy cable/satellite content delivery industry is an oligopoly.
    When there are only a few players, they can stop competing on price and pretend to compete on "features."
    And that oligopoly will fight tooth and nail to keep Apple down for as long as possible.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,519member
    bdkennedy said:
    Apple is performing like Microsoft in this area. They better get their act together before it's too late. Sling TV is where it's at.
    Sling TV is an app, and it runs on Apple TV.  What is your point?
    nolamacguywilliamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 42
    bdkennedy said:
    Apple is performing like Microsoft in this area. They better get their act together before it's too late. Sling TV is where it's at.
    Sling?  Who are they?
    Ok, I'm joking. but, Apple have to think on a global scale not just the USA.
    Remember the Zune? MS only sold it in the USA. Meanwhile the iPod was cleaning up everywhere else.

    Apple is a Global Company. The USA might become a backwater when it comes to their revenue.
    The likes of Sling may become irrelevant local bit players.

  • Reply 17 of 42
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,519member

    Apple cannot buy Time Warner, when Charter already acquired TWC and completed the deal.  If it was a rumor in 2015, why mention it in the article?  I don't want to rely on the internet for watching TV.  There are times when internet service is down, but I can still watch TV.  Or if the internet is having network issues, I don't want to have a degraded picture or a spinning wheel waiting to buffer data.
    There is (was) TWC - Time Warner Cable - which was purchased by Charter as you noted.  There is also Time Warner Inc (TWX) which is the media conglomerate which owns HBO, CNN, CW, TBS...  They are two different companies (but used to be one about 7 years ago).

    The rumour was Apple purchasing TWX for access to content.  
  • Reply 18 of 42
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,823member
    Apple cannot buy Time Warner, when Charter already acquired TWC and completed the deal.  If it was a rumor in 2015, why mention it in the article?  I don't want to rely on the internet for watching TV.  There are times when internet service is down, but I can still watch TV.  Or if the internet is having network issues, I don't want to have a degraded picture or a spinning wheel waiting to buffer data.
    Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two separate companies that have nothing to do with each other.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    The average American household spends $231 per year to rent a set top box. 
    They could ditch the set top box and buy an Apple TV for only $149. 
    The next version of tvOS also makes it easier to get access to all the channels available in your provider's package. 
  • Reply 20 of 42
    The FCC is also pushing to bring competition to the set top box market. 
Sign In or Register to comment.