If Apple really wants this to happen, they'll need someone like Phil Schiller (maybe even Tim Cook as well) to do the negotiations .
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Because he knows how to get shit done and done right. As other people have said, he's not only a marketing guy. Its obvious Eddie isn't the person for this particular job or else we'd have at least some kind of continuous talks by now. Who else at Apple would be able to do this other than Tim Cook (whom I already mention could team with Phil to do this)?
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Because Eddy is an incompetent buffoon.
so, being a random guy on the Internet, do you really believe that? that you could even know that? I mean how on earth are you and someone named "rogifan" in any sort of privledged position to know what goes on behind closed doors at the most successful, most secretively tech company in the history of humanity?
you guys realize that reading shit on rumor sites and whatnot doesn't actually inform you of what's going on at an executive level, right? you don't personally sit in in these meetings, right?
the notion that Cue has gone from a web guy to an incompetent buffoon at the highest level of the most valuable, most scrutinized company in history is....well, moronic.
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Well he does an ace job of convincing people that $360 in parts is worth $850, he should have little problem in convincing content providers that their $100 of content is really only worth $30. . . . (I am joking)
there's much more to retail pricing than parts.
that price isn't bad. you guys would shit if you realized retailers like World Market markup goods 2-3x their costs. having been a supplier to WM and others, I know this for a fact. retailers like GNC sell $40-50 powders that cost $2-4 to produce -- 10x markup is not unheard of.
thats why I always tell the critics to go out into the world and learn how things actually work before bashing Apple as normal. ignorance abounds.
It's just plain sad that these media companies do not get it. The pirate methods far exceed what they offer and it's getting easier and easier to setup these systems. You effectively can use the Internet as your DVR. You aren't recording at all you are just telling automated systems what you want and then it magically appears within about an hour of airing and you can typically get the back catalog of episodes most of the time. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper and it's easy to either buy a home NAS or build one. They are soon to be in big trouble in the next few years. Perhaps Apple will have to wait till they are desperate like the music industry.
If you don't adapt to the new digital world then pirates will fill the void, the more you fight it and make life difficult for the consumer the more the pirates will fight back. The only way to win against the pirates is to make it super easy to use and inexpensive. Tear down the walls and go global, you will gain a huge untapped market. Game Of Thrones in the most pirated show in history. HBO Now is starting to turn tremendous profits they would have otherwise never tapped.
this. I stopped pirating music and TV shows when it became easier to buy them. iTunes was the main driver of this.
Well the industry changing pretty fast. Dish and other providers are bleeding customers and if content makers think the avg person will sign up for more one or more standalone services (i.e. HBO NOW, MLB, Netflix, etc) they're only fooling themselves. We officially cut the cord last week. Dish came back with the full package for $30/month for the first year. I'm happy to pay that locked in, and in a well packaged product. We use Sling now, which is serviceable, but a far cry from the TV app experience.
I cut the cord last year and dropped cable tv and phone. I kept internet service though. The over the air image quality is better than what I was getting through cable. The only channels I miss are AMC and Turner Classic Movies but I don't miss them as much as I thought I would especially in the summer.
Right now I am at my vacation cabin where I don't have good over the air signal so I signed up for cable internet service. This gets me voip and I use my Apple TV 2 for CNBC which is free and signed up for CBS all access which is $8/mo so I can get a local station. Those plus Netflix and Crackle and I'm set plus there is no penalty for cancelation.
Someone on Twitter posted that the TV industry needs Apple far more than Apple needs the TV industry. Um, if there were no TV content apps who would buy the Apple TV. People certainly aren't buying it for games. Apple doesn't have the TV industry over a barrel. They know Apple will never refuse their apps because it makes Apple's platform(s) less desirable by consumers. Apple doesn't need a subscription TV service, hence why they're probably playing hardball here.
Now, hardball is something content owners know all about. Just ask one of their long-suffering customers.
And Disney is really one to talk. I've had it with their overpriced park and its overpriced food, and their mediocre, formulaic movies. Disney and the cable providers can go jump in the lake.
The studios see Apple's cash and want a sweeter deal than they are currently getting from others.
So, keep up the hardball negotiating tactics, Eddy! The longer the studios holdout due to greed, the more time you have to get your own original programming lined up, which will enable you to move forward without studio programming.
I thought Apple recently said they weren't too interested in original programming?
EDIT: Yes they did. “We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows,” Cue said. “If we see it being complementary to the things we’re doing at Apple Music or if we see it being something that’s innovative on our platform, we may help them and guide them and make suggestions. But we’re not trying to compete with Netflix or compete with Comcast.”
Read it again.
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
And then read it once more. Saying they weren't going to be competing with Netflix or Comcast says original programming is not something that interests them doesn't it? Seems like you're searching for some wiggle room in hopes he didn't mean what everyone took him to be saying. Whether filming it themselves or paying someone else to create it amounts to the same thing.
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
And then read it once more. Saying they weren't going to be competing with Netflix or Comcast says original programming is not something that interests them doesn't it? Seems like you're searching for some wiggle room in hopes he didn't mean what everyone took him to be saying. Whether filming it themselves or paying someone else to create it amounts to the same thing.
Example of how "original" programming is generated for Netflix:
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
And then read it once more. Saying they weren't going to be competing with Netflix or Comcast says original programming is not something that interests them doesn't it? Seems like you're searching for some wiggle room in hopes he didn't mean what everyone took him to be saying. Whether filming it themselves or paying someone else to create it amounts to the same thing.
Example of how "original" programming is generated for Netflix:
Netflix funded the series, but all of the production was through the production company; Netflix didn't make it.
The article title states the obvious:
"Stranger Things’ Creators Mourn Barb, Geek Out Over The Millennium Falcon And Tease Season 2"
A quote;
"It was always conceived as a series, but it wasn’t conceived specifically for Netflix. We honestly didn’t think it was a realistic possibility."
Proves my point.
Of the three current programs that Apple has as "original" content, one is a drama of the music industry, one is a reality show based on a recurring theme on the Late, Late, Show, and one is related to programming apps. Looks to be a pretty narrow focus. Not sure what point is proved.
“We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows,” Cue said. “If we see it being complementary to the things we’re doing at Apple Music or if we see it being something that’s innovative on our platform, we may help them and guide them and make suggestions. But we’re not trying to compete with Netflix or compete with Comcast.”
Not sure where those three programs deviate from Eddie's statement above, but if Apple is trying to compete with Netflix, I'm not seeing any indication of it.
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
And then read it once more. Saying they weren't going to be competing with Netflix or Comcast says original programming is not something that interests them doesn't it? Seems like you're searching for some wiggle room in hopes he didn't mean what everyone took him to be saying. Whether filming it themselves or paying someone else to create it amounts to the same thing.
Weelllll, no, it clearly doesn't; you just wish it does because you've actually managed to argue yourself into a losing position: hoisted by your own petard, as it were.
I was merely pointing out the difference between buying content and making it. It's all there in your own quote:
We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows.
He did not say that he was not going to buy them in. Even if you're hoping there is no difference, Cue obviously sees that there is because he's already bought Carpool Karaoke, outbidding several potential partners to get it .
But going back to the wiggle; the fact is (for anyone paying attention) is that it doesn’t really matter whether he says they're not going to create them or not because Apple has a long history of saying they'll not do something and then later on, doing that very thing. Case in point: they promised John Lennon that they wouldn't get into the music business; hell, they were legally bound not to get into the music business. Do you honestly believe that Cue will avoid content creation forevermore, simply because he said he would in an interview? That is wishful thinking. Case in point: Apple is producing a TV show called Planet of the Apps. They have already made an exclusive programme about Taylor Swift on tour. They are (apparently) working on a series called Vital Signs with Doctor Dre, and as recently as last month, Jimmy Iovine was saying that Apple would be happy to make original TV programming if the opportunity presents itself:
So no 'wiggle' is needed because common sense tells me that Apple will jump straight into making its own content if the upsides outweigh the downsides, no matter what appeasements Cue makes during interviews.
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Well he does an ace job of convincing people that $360 in parts is worth $850, he should have little problem in convincing content providers that their $100 of content is really only worth $30. . . . (I am joking)
Y'know, your constant sniping is okay, this is the internet after all, and it's quite entertaining. But you should have the courage to stand by your trolling, instead of trying to weasel it across as a joke. That's just embarrassing.
so, being a random guy on the Internet, do you really believe that? that you could even know that? I mean how on earth are you and someone named "rogifan" in any sort of privledged position to know what goes on behind closed doors at the most successful, most secretively tech company in the history of humanity?
you guys realize that reading shit on rumor sites and whatnot doesn't actually inform you of what's going on at an executive level, right? you don't personally sit in in these meetings, right?
the notion that Cue has gone from a web guy to an incompetent buffoon at the highest level of the most valuable, most scrutinized company in history is....well, moronic.
Well, this is the thing. If Cue was incompetent as the armchair CEOs insist he is then Cook is just as incompetent for not firing him already. Now I don't think Cook is incompetent, and he had no problem kicking Scott Forstall to the kerb, so perhaps these negotiations are more complicated than the armchair CEOs think. Perhaps Cue does not want to subject Apple customers to constant price hikes as the service improves in popularity. Perhaps Cue (and the rest of the management team, because it is naive to think that Cue is doing all this on his own without a steer from his boss) doesn't want Apple to be accused of gouging its customers with yearly price rises. And that is what will happen, and that's what the armchair CEOs here will whine is happening because their lack of business acumen means they can't tell the difference between Apple's charging their customers and Apple's partners screwing Apple.
And then of course the armchair CEOs will start posting nonsense like, 'Well, Apple's sitting on billions; they should swallow the cost!' Which, of course, is a sure fire way to burn through the billions you're sitting on.
Of course Apple's negotiation tactics did not work. How can they? It's the same problem as with Apple Pay. Both, AppleTV and ApplePay are disruptive and the current players in the market need some time to realise that the days they can milk the cows (until they implode) are over.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time. A bundled service of channels is making less and less sense
Apple needs nothing from the cable providers. The less they work with them, the better
What would be interesting if Apple could add an antenna to Apple TV for to pull in live HDTV channels which are mandated by law. ABC, NBC, CBS. That would help secure sine live sports programming
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
And then read it once more. Saying they weren't going to be competing with Netflix or Comcast says original programming is not something that interests them doesn't it? Seems like you're searching for some wiggle room in hopes he didn't mean what everyone took him to be saying. Whether filming it themselves or paying someone else to create it amounts to the same thing.
Weelllll, no, it clearly doesn't; you just wish it does because you've actually managed to argue yourself into a losing position: hoisted by your own petard, as it were.
But going back to the wiggle; the fact is (for anyone paying attention) is that it doesn’t really matter whether he says they're not going to create them or not because Apple has a long history of saying they'll not do something and then later on, doing that very thing. Case in point: they promised John Lennon that they wouldn't get into the music business; hell, they were legally bound not to get into the music business. Do you honestly believe that Cue will avoid content creation forevermore, simply because he said he would in an interview? That is wishful thinking. Case in point: Apple is producing a TV show called Planet of the Apps.
So no 'wiggle' is needed because common sense tells me that Apple will jump straight into making its own content if the upsides outweigh the downsides, no matter what appeasements Cue makes during interviews.
So I'll ask you the same thing I asked the OP: Why say anything at all unless it's the truth? Being silent gives away no more company plans than saying one thing but doing another. All that does is lead to mistrust.
So again, why say anything? If what you believe about Apple is correct then no doubt you would agree with the networks (or anyone else doing business with them) distrust of Apple. Is that the Apple you want?
"Apple’s Mr. Cue arrived 10 minutes late and was wearing jeans, tennis shoes with no socks, and a Hawaiian shirt, says a person familiar with the meeting. The other executives were wearing suits. (sounds like Silicon Valley culture clashed with East Coast Media Establishment; establishment whinges)
The talks dragged on. Apple wanted full on-demand seasons of hit shows and rights to a vast, cloud-based digital video recorder that would automatically store top programs and allow ad-skipping in newly aired shows.
TV-channel owners “kept looking at the Apple guys like: ‘Do you have any idea how this industry works?’ ” one former Time Warner Cable executive says. Apple has said doing new things requires changes that often are unsettling."
I'm guessing your point about the "original" programming is to prove that Cue and/or Apple, et al, are lying now because of previous comments about "original" programs, but at the same time, there isn't any evidence that Apple is attempting to compete with Netflix or Comcast at this point in time. But they surely will at some point, so, I guess that makes them liars. or something bad.
BTW, Netlix got beat up by WS for losing some 300k long time subscribers who didn't want to ante up the $2 a month change to their subscriptions; few like constant cost increases, and even infrequent increases is a risky proposition.
Comments
you guys realize that reading shit on rumor sites and whatnot doesn't actually inform you of what's going on at an executive level, right? you don't personally sit in in these meetings, right?
the notion that Cue has gone from a web guy to an incompetent buffoon at the highest level of the most valuable, most scrutinized company in history is....well, moronic.
there's much more to retail pricing than parts.
that price isn't bad. you guys would shit if you realized retailers like World Market markup goods 2-3x their costs. having been a supplier to WM and others, I know this for a fact. retailers like GNC sell $40-50 powders that cost $2-4 to produce -- 10x markup is not unheard of.
thats why I always tell the critics to go out into the world and learn how things actually work before bashing Apple as normal. ignorance abounds.
this. I stopped pirating music and TV shows when it became easier to buy them. iTunes was the main driver of this.
Right now I am at my vacation cabin where I don't have good over the air signal so I signed up for cable internet service. This gets me voip and I use my Apple TV 2 for CNBC which is free and signed up for CBS all access which is $8/mo so I can get a local station. Those plus Netflix and Crackle and I'm set plus there is no penalty for cancelation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stranger-things-duffer-brothers_us_57990d09e4b01180b5316329
Netflix funded the series, but all of the production was through the production company; Netflix didn't make it.
The article title states the obvious:
"Stranger Things’ Creators Mourn Barb, Geek Out Over The Millennium Falcon And Tease Season 2"
A quote;
"It was always conceived as a series, but it wasn’t conceived specifically for Netflix. We honestly didn’t think it was a realistic possibility."
“We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows,” Cue said. “If we see it being complementary to the things we’re doing at Apple Music or if we see it being something that’s innovative on our platform, we may help them and guide them and make suggestions. But we’re not trying to compete with Netflix or compete with Comcast.”
Not sure where those three programs deviate from Eddie's statement above, but if Apple is trying to compete with Netflix, I'm not seeing any indication of it.
Weelllll, no, it clearly doesn't; you just wish it does because you've actually managed to argue yourself into a losing position: hoisted by your own petard, as it were.
I was merely pointing out the difference between buying content and making it. It's all there in your own quote:
We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows.
He did not say that he was not going to buy them in. Even if you're hoping there is no difference, Cue obviously sees that there is because he's already bought Carpool Karaoke, outbidding several potential partners to get it .
But going back to the wiggle; the fact is (for anyone paying attention) is that it doesn’t really matter whether he says they're not going to create them or not because Apple has a long history of saying they'll not do something and then later on, doing that very thing. Case in point: they promised John Lennon that they wouldn't get into the music business; hell, they were legally bound not to get into the music business. Do you honestly believe that Cue will avoid content creation forevermore, simply because he said he would in an interview? That is wishful thinking. Case in point: Apple is producing a TV show called Planet of the Apps. They have already made an exclusive programme about Taylor Swift on tour. They are (apparently) working on a series called Vital Signs with Doctor Dre, and as recently as last month, Jimmy Iovine was saying that Apple would be happy to make original TV programming if the opportunity presents itself:
http://fortune.com/2016/06/15/apple-music-tv/
So no 'wiggle' is needed because common sense tells me that Apple will jump straight into making its own content if the upsides outweigh the downsides, no matter what appeasements Cue makes during interviews.
Y'know, your constant sniping is okay, this is the internet after all, and it's quite entertaining. But you should have the courage to stand by your trolling, instead of trying to weasel it across as a joke. That's just embarrassing.
Well, this is the thing. If Cue was incompetent as the armchair CEOs insist he is then Cook is just as incompetent for not firing him already. Now I don't think Cook is incompetent, and he had no problem kicking Scott Forstall to the kerb, so perhaps these negotiations are more complicated than the armchair CEOs think. Perhaps Cue does not want to subject Apple customers to constant price hikes as the service improves in popularity. Perhaps Cue (and the rest of the management team, because it is naive to think that Cue is doing all this on his own without a steer from his boss) doesn't want Apple to be accused of gouging its customers with yearly price rises. And that is what will happen, and that's what the armchair CEOs here will whine is happening because their lack of business acumen means they can't tell the difference between Apple's charging their customers and Apple's partners screwing Apple.
And then of course the armchair CEOs will start posting nonsense like, 'Well, Apple's sitting on billions; they should swallow the cost!' Which, of course, is a sure fire way to burn through the billions you're sitting on.
So again, why say anything? If what you believe about Apple is correct then no doubt you would agree with the networks (or anyone else doing business with them) distrust of Apple. Is that the Apple you want?
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/apples-hard-charging-tactics-hurt-tv-expansion-1469721330-lMyQjAxMTA2ODI2ODEyODgyWj
"Apple’s Mr. Cue arrived 10 minutes late and was wearing jeans, tennis shoes with no socks, and a Hawaiian shirt, says a person familiar with the meeting. The other executives were wearing suits. (sounds like Silicon Valley culture clashed with East Coast Media Establishment; establishment whinges)
The talks dragged on. Apple wanted full on-demand seasons of hit shows and rights to a vast, cloud-based digital video recorder that would automatically store top programs and allow ad-skipping in newly aired shows.
TV-channel owners “kept looking at the Apple guys like: ‘Do you have any idea how this industry works?’ ” one former Time Warner Cable executive says. Apple has said doing new things requires changes that often are unsettling."
I'm guessing your point about the "original" programming is to prove that Cue and/or Apple, et al, are lying now because of previous comments about "original" programs, but at the same time, there isn't any evidence that Apple is attempting to compete with Netflix or Comcast at this point in time. But they surely will at some point, so, I guess that makes them liars. or something bad.
BTW, Netlix got beat up by WS for losing some 300k long time subscribers who didn't want to ante up the $2 a month change to their subscriptions; few like constant cost increases, and even infrequent increases is a risky proposition.