Tim Cook confirms Apple Music's 50 million users, push into TV and movies

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 851member
    Primary competitor Spotify announced earlier in May that it has 75 million premium subscribers meeting its own targets, but profoundly disappointing Wall Street. 
    It's extremely easy to disappoint Wall Street -- just look at AAPL. But it's even easier to disappoint when you are Spotify and have never had a profitable quarter.

    Apple can gain some traction in the video category if they would further enhance the Apple TV with Atmos, support 4K iTunes output to external devices from non-ATVs, and wrangle in Disney 4K content. Apple needs to further justify the price differential between the ATV and the closest competitors from Roku, Amazon, etc. Apple's "free" 4K content upgrade is great but needs more to boost purchases/ownership.
  • Reply 22 of 48
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    An article about Tim Cook saying he will only make content that accords with Apple's brand (which presumably means inclusive, non-offensive, representative, etc). 

    And then right below that (on the front page) an article about Steve Jobs' long association with John Carmack, maker of some of the most violent content of his time! People might not remember but Wolfenstein and Doom were extremely violent by 90s standards.
  • Reply 23 of 48
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,253member
    stubb said:
    Would love to see Apple pick up "The Expanse". We're already watching it on our Apple TV.
    Nope. “Too dark” for Apple. If anyone picks it up, it’ll be Amazon or Netflix. Neither of them shy from controversial or adult themes.
    edited May 15
  • Reply 24 of 48
    gatorguy said:
    FWIW Apple push into services would result in a value of $381B as a standalone company according to Gene Munster. Not too shabby.
    That would be Munster's value, not Wall Street's value. Wall Street's value would certainly be much lower as they usually do with Apple.
  • Reply 25 of 48
    Dracarys said:
    You can't compare the 8 year start of Spotify vs Apple, because the streaming market wasn't near what it is today 8 years ago. Spotify did all the hard legwork, Apple jumped in once the market was ready and really didn't have to do all that much work to compete.


    On the flip side, one could argue that with an established player in the market it makes it far tougher for a company (Apple) to convince people to use their service over an established one.

    50 million is damn impressive. Looks like that Beats buy was a bargain.
    Yet everyone moaned and groaned about how Apple was throwing a paltry $3B down the toilet. Why? Because everyone seems to know how to run Apple better than Apple does. I can't wait until Apple builds up a video streaming service. I'm sure it will happen or Apple wouldn't be producing its own series. If Apple bundles that service with AppleMusic like Amazon is doing, it will be absolutely amazing for Apple and Apple users. I'd be happy to pay for a yearly subscription of streaming video and music if it cost around $120. Apple could easily afford it and I'm sure it would drive hardware sales across the board. If Apple could come out with some relatively low-cost Siri device to control those services by voice, it could have a shot at competing with Alexa and Echo devices.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 48
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,640member
    gatorguy said:
    FWIW Apple push into services would result in a value of $381B as a standalone company according to Gene Munster. Not too shabby.
    Not too shabby at all...and thats not a bad thing. Apple needs other sources of revenue. They can't ride on the iPhone forever. While some think Apple is spending its wings too far I think it needs to do stuff like this. 
    Chris46watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 48
    tjwolf said:
    This may be a dumb question, but how does Apple deliver its content en masse?  My 3rd-gen Apple TVs have a "Movies" icon and that top-bar (of highlighted movies) that are owned by Apple, but that's about it - I don't see a "TV" option as exists on iPhone.  I know where to go for Netflix or Amazon shows, but for Apple's shows...?  Perhaps "TV" is only available on the recent crop of Apple's streamers?
    The "TV" app is only on 4th- and 5th-generation TV. But content could appear in the iTunes ("Movies" and "TV Shows") apps as free or subscription offerings on your 3rd-generation units.

    I think most likely this content will be "free" with an Apple Music subscription. It's clumsy to offer a second service, separate from Apple Music. I mean, it would help distinguish Apple Music from Spotify. It could also be used to sell hardware if it were free content on all Apple devices.

    I think that's the big question that will be answered when this rolls out. It would definitely be Apple-like to use it to sell hardware, similar to how macOS is used -- you want macOS, you buy Apple hardware, you want free "Apple Studios" video content, you buy Apple hardware. I'd enjoy it especially, as it would be a nice FU to all the haters who think Cook has abandoned this core business model. It's not exactly the same -- people without Apple hardware would still be able to get the content by paying for it, most likely with an Apple Music subscription -- but it's also not radically different. It will be used as an incentive to buy Apple hardware.
    edited May 15 watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 48
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,138member
    "We are very interested in the content business. We will be playing in a way that is consistent with our brand," 

    In 2015 Eddy Cue said this:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/media/apple-tv-future-eddy-cue-interview/index.html
    I also asked Cue if he felt that Apple TV needs exclusive programming to differentiate from competing devices like Google Chromecast and Roku. 

    "We don't try to do things that are exclusive," he answered. "What we try to do is build technologies that let developers do things that they can't do anywhere else."

    Obviously Apple management changed their opinion on original content in the past year or two. I’d love Cook or Cue to explain Apple’s motivations for getting into original programming. If it’s just hardware sales are slowing so Apple needs more ways to monetize the existing customer base, that isn’t very compelling outside of Wall Street. I’d want to know does Apple management think the current landscape of TV programming is bad and they’re going to offer something better? What’s going to make Apple’s original content stand out from what Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. currently offer? And stand out enough that people will be willing to spend $10/mo on it. 

    What they will probably do is offer some enticing bundles. $15 for all music and TV, $20 for all that and more iCloud space, maybe throw in some voucher codes for apps, or cheap prices on apps for bundle owners.

    ( I know that Apple doesnt really do the latter but it might in future)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 48
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    I don't think this is as far from Apple's core business as it might first appear. 

    All businesses Apple has moved in to have been things that were already digital or about to become so, e.g. computers, music, phones, photos, books, maps, money.

    Looking at demos like Vicon Siren makes me think soon many movies will be all-digital, so we should expect the computer companies to be making their moves about now.
  • Reply 30 of 48
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 340member
    ireland said:

    AppleZulu said:
    lepton said:
    I don't know, this content creation business is not what Apple does. What they do is enable content creation and consumption with its hardware and software. Let others make the actual content. Apple should be careful not to lose focus. That was its near-downfall last time, and this time there is no Steve to save them.
    Remember that time when Steve Jobs was in exile from Apple, and he headed up NeXT computers, and then also bought into the developing Pixar animation company?
    Steve has passed.
    I’m aware of that. Re-read what I was reacting to and think for a minute.
  • Reply 31 of 48
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,044member
    asdasd said:
    I am a bit uncomfortable with the "consistent with our brand" philosophy because Apple can be a bit too sanctimonious and censorious. I welcome that in the App Store but not for TV, as I am an adult.

    In a world with lots of fairly good but somewhat disturbing content ( from westworld, to black mirror, to the Nordic Noir and much more) competing with the HallMark channel isn't going to be a winner.  
    Good thing you have other channels to choose from. Apple doesn’t owe you R-rated content. They are free to produce whatever they want to produce. You are free to subscribe to whatever you want to subscribe to. 

    Disney and Pixar seem to be doing quite well with their non-R-rated content. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 48
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,044member
    "We are very interested in the content business. We will be playing in a way that is consistent with our brand," 

    In 2015 Eddy Cue said this:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/media/apple-tv-future-eddy-cue-interview/index.html
    I also asked Cue if he felt that Apple TV needs exclusive programming to differentiate from competing devices like Google Chromecast and Roku. 

    "We don't try to do things that are exclusive," he answered. "What we try to do is build technologies that let developers do things that they can't do anywhere else."

    Obviously Apple management changed their opinion on original content in the past year or two. I’d love Cook or Cue to explain Apple’s motivations for getting into original programming. If it’s just hardware sales are slowing so Apple needs more ways to monetize the existing customer base, that isn’t very compelling outside of Wall Street. I’d want to know does Apple management think the current landscape of TV programming is bad and they’re going to offer something better? What’s going to make Apple’s original content stand out from what Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. currently offer? And stand out enough that people will be willing to spend $10/mo on it. 

    Apple isn’t going to outline their pricing strategy nor content strategy to you just because you’re skeptical. 

    Netflix, HBO and Amazon all have tons of shitty content, in addition to the few high quality hits. That’s all it takes. Apple doesn’t have to be any different and having that expectation is grading them on a curve. And in reality that’s how the creative process works — some works are great, some aren’t, and some are just subjective at best. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 48
    Chris46Chris46 Posts: 7member
    Quality of music is not good enough to get rid of a free tier. It never was. And there will always be a free market for older content, and underperforming content, which is the majority of the music market right now to be honest. The music industry wants to monetize everything and you're leaving money on the table forcing everyone to pay. People will pay for like 2% of what it out there. They won't pay for the other 98%. We just think that everything is available for streaming on Spotify now. That simply isn't true, maybe YouTube or SoundCloud, but those platforms have too much music to count. As far as waiting until a market matures to jump in, instead of testing the waters early on, Apple always does this. It is a smart business strategy but only if you have old money and you don't need to experiment in that space, which is why Apple was able to do it. You can say that they are doing the exact same thing with video. Between Apple and Facebook it will be interesting to see which company can make a more meaningful contribution between the two of them.  I still want to see Facebook get into hardware and offer something worth paying for, for a change but somehow I think they would find a way to mess that up again.
    edited May 15
  • Reply 34 of 48
    Chris46Chris46 Posts: 7member
    "We are very interested in the content business. We will be playing in a way that is consistent with our brand," 

    In 2015 Eddy Cue said this:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/media/apple-tv-future-eddy-cue-interview/index.html
    I also asked Cue if he felt that Apple TV needs exclusive programming to differentiate from competing devices like Google Chromecast and Roku. 

    "We don't try to do things that are exclusive," he answered. "What we try to do is build technologies that let developers do things that they can't do anywhere else."

    Obviously Apple management changed their opinion on original content in the past year or two. I’d love Cook or Cue to explain Apple’s motivations for getting into original programming. If it’s just hardware sales are slowing so Apple needs more ways to monetize the existing customer base, that isn’t very compelling outside of Wall Street. I’d want to know does Apple management think the current landscape of TV programming is bad and they’re going to offer something better? What’s going to make Apple’s original content stand out from what Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. currently offer? And stand out enough that people will be willing to spend $10/mo on it. 

    Apple isn’t going to outline their pricing strategy nor content strategy to you just because you’re skeptical. 

    Netflix, HBO and Amazon all have tons of shitty content, in addition to the few high quality hits. That’s all it takes. Apple doesn’t have to be any different and having that expectation is grading them on a curve. And in reality that’s how the creative process works — some works are great, some aren’t, and some are just subjective at best. 
    Exactly.  Netflix is batting .300.  HBO used to bat .300 back in the nineties and that was a different game as it was cable television.  I don't even think Amazon is batting .050.  Hulu is far from the mark as well, but getting better.  A lot further than Amazon on originals in my opinion; guess that all depends on who you ask.  But they're all profitable.

    A better comparison would be Hulu because Hulu is comprised of companies that were already making money in regular television and cinema.  
  • Reply 35 of 48
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 751member
    ireland said:
    Dracarys said:
    You can't compare the 8 year start of Spotify vs Apple, because the streaming market wasn't near what it is today 8 years ago. Spotify did all the hard legwork, Apple jumped in once the market was ready and really didn't have to do all that much work to compete.
    Hmm, sounds like smart strategy, and therefore exactly why you can compare the two. Lol
    It is somewhat funny, but I agree that it’s a somewhat disingenuous comparison. Spotify built the music streaming industry, and Apple joined it. Iovine pitched streaming music to Jobs years ago and he didn’t bite. Apple would be number one had they. Credit where credit is due. I do think the existence of a free tier isn’t good for music though. The labels should pull out of that deal now that the industry has grown up a bit. Free trial without ads and then pay or end your listening. Ads are yucky. Quality of music has larger tanked tbh.
    Spotify wouldn’t exist if it were not for Apple. Apple actually helped the quite a bit by promoting their App and because most of their users signed via the App Store. Then Spotify started aggressively attacking Apple complaining that they get a cut of revenue generated by Apple’s platform while also being a threat to iTunes. In reality Apple supported streaming music long before Spotify via iTunes Radio. I actually used it all the time. Podcasts were another form of streaming. Just like people say Apple copied others with Siri voice commands, macs have had voice recognition since 2001. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 48
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,415member
    genovelle said:
    ireland said:
    Dracarys said:
    You can't compare the 8 year start of Spotify vs Apple, because the streaming market wasn't near what it is today 8 years ago. Spotify did all the hard legwork, Apple jumped in once the market was ready and really didn't have to do all that much work to compete.
    Hmm, sounds like smart strategy, and therefore exactly why you can compare the two. Lol
    It is somewhat funny, but I agree that it’s a somewhat disingenuous comparison. Spotify built the music streaming industry, and Apple joined it. Iovine pitched streaming music to Jobs years ago and he didn’t bite. Apple would be number one had they. Credit where credit is due. I do think the existence of a free tier isn’t good for music though. The labels should pull out of that deal now that the industry has grown up a bit. Free trial without ads and then pay or end your listening. Ads are yucky. Quality of music has larger tanked tbh.
    Spotify wouldn’t exist if it were not for Apple. Apple actually helped the quite a bit by promoting their App and because most of their users signed via the App Store. Then Spotify started aggressively attacking Apple complaining that they get a cut of revenue generated by Apple’s platform while also being a threat to iTunes. In reality Apple supported streaming music long before Spotify via iTunes Radio. I actually used it all the time. Podcasts were another form of streaming. Just like people say Apple copied others with Siri voice commands, macs have had voice recognition since 2001. 
    Surprised we all still worry so much about "who was first". No one's tech exists in a vacuum, and they're all beholden to a whole bunch'a "someone else's" who made whatever they sell/service/offer today possible. 
    asdasd
  • Reply 37 of 48
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,138member
    asdasd said:
    I am a bit uncomfortable with the "consistent with our brand" philosophy because Apple can be a bit too sanctimonious and censorious. I welcome that in the App Store but not for TV, as I am an adult.

    In a world with lots of fairly good but somewhat disturbing content ( from westworld, to black mirror, to the Nordic Noir and much more) competing with the HallMark channel isn't going to be a winner.  
    Good thing you have other channels to choose from. Apple doesn’t owe you R-rated content. They are free to produce whatever they want to produce. You are free to subscribe to whatever you want to subscribe to. 

    Disney and Pixar seem to be doing quite well with their non-R-rated content. 
    Who's denying that. I am free to choose what I want, and they are free to give what they want.

    The question is can they compete with Netflix, or Amazon, or Hulu  with fairly limited content. Netflix has plenty of family friendly content. They just have other stuff. 

     I am a prime candidate ( like many here) for an Apple TV only service as all of my devices are from Apple. Needs to be compelling. 

    gatorguy
  • Reply 38 of 48
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,406member
    Dracarys said:
    You can't compare the 8 year start of Spotify vs Apple, because the streaming market wasn't near what it is today 8 years ago. Spotify did all the hard legwork, Apple jumped in once the market was ready and really didn't have to do all that much work to compete.
    You're exactly right. Ford did all the legwork a century before Tesla was founded which is why Tesla, Saturn, and Tucker had such an easy go of it¡
    edited May 15 fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 48
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,052member
    "We are very interested in the content business. We will be playing in a way that is consistent with our brand," 

    In 2015 Eddy Cue said this:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/06/media/apple-tv-future-eddy-cue-interview/index.html
    I also asked Cue if he felt that Apple TV needs exclusive programming to differentiate from competing devices like Google Chromecast and Roku. 

    "We don't try to do things that are exclusive," he answered. "What we try to do is build technologies that let developers do things that they can't do anywhere else."

    Obviously Apple management changed their opinion on original content in the past year or two. I’d love Cook or Cue to explain Apple’s motivations for getting into original programming. If it’s just hardware sales are slowing so Apple needs more ways to monetize the existing customer base, that isn’t very compelling outside of Wall Street. I’d want to know does Apple management think the current landscape of TV programming is bad and they’re going to offer something better? What’s going to make Apple’s original content stand out from what Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. currently offer? And stand out enough that people will be willing to spend $10/mo on it. 

    Apple isn’t going to outline their pricing strategy nor content strategy to you just because you’re skeptical. 

    Netflix, HBO and Amazon all have tons of shitty content, in addition to the few high quality hits. That’s all it takes. Apple doesn’t have to be any different and having that expectation is grading them on a curve. And in reality that’s how the creative process works — some works are great, some aren’t, and some are just subjective at best. 
    There are a few shows on Amazon I like such as The Man in the High Castle, but overall, most of their content is shit imo. Netflix has more quality shows, but they do have a lot of stuff that just isn't very good. One area I hope Apple gets into with original content are nature documentaries. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 48
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 340member
    Even for their own self-produced premium content, Amazon and Netflix offer it up in a digital equivalent of the discount DVD bin at WalMart. So much digging through disorganized piles of eighth-tier junk, just to try to find desireable nuggets. Hopefully Apple will re-think that mess before offering up their own equivalent service. The TV app already does a better job of sifting through the aggregated offerings of various third-party content apps, but wow. That is an area ripe for the Apple touch.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.