Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit

1246711

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 203
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    If they cant come up with channels they could still package shows per season like they are doing right now and come up with an even lower price than 99c per episodes. Imagine they sell you a currently running 20 episodes season for 14.99. Not too bad afterall.
  • Reply 62 of 203
    joe hsjoe hs Posts: 488member
    Posted twice. Check below
  • Reply 63 of 203
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    I'm beginning to believe that the only way for Apple to get what they want is to make deals such as this and to buy up at least one of the big networks. They have more than enough money.



    They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.
  • Reply 64 of 203
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Great shot off the bow of Google, he diminishes the value of all of their set top boxes in 1 swipe..
  • Reply 65 of 203
    joe hsjoe hs Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peter02l View Post


    Apple needs to take no such risk since you personally guaranteed its success.



    Is that sarcasm? Of not, I did not think I needed to mention the would need cable companies backing them with local sport/news etc
  • Reply 66 of 203
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post


    I was thinking about this today - what if Apple partnered with Hulu like they did one the iphone/ipad for Hulu+ through an APP. Unlimited viewing of entire seasons of hit shows for only $9.99 a month. If you only watch a season of one show it pays for itself, plus you can watch on the go. This would get me to buy in a heartbeat.



    They didn't partr with Hulu. They just accepted the hulu app into the App Store. Hulu is owned by the big networks. You can't deal with Hulu without dealing with them because Hulu is merely a middleman.



    As of now the networks have rejected any subscription services. A few years ago NBC wanted to offer packages, but from I understand, they wanted to offer a couple of hit shows along with crap.
  • Reply 67 of 203
    walshbjwalshbj Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    ...There is nothing that had given FOX more legitimacy than when they got NFC football in the 90s. It also killed NBC to lose the AFC and those ramifications are still felt today....



    Couldn't agree more.
  • Reply 68 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.



    Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.
  • Reply 69 of 203
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pegarm View Post


    I think the biggest drawback to the streaming set top model is the delay between the live broadcast and the availability online. Right now, the world is switching from watching "what's on" to "what's available." Typicially the availability of a program is 12-24 hours after its air date. Imagine if you could rent a TV show at the same time it airs for broadcast.



    Now THAT would make people give up their cable!



    Not necessarily. It depends upon whether one "watches TV" or watches particular shows. For those who watch very little TV and choose what they want to watch, a pay on demand model could work. For those who watch a lot of TV, they might feel more comfortable with the fixed monthly price they get from cable, even though it currently doesn't lend itself to being able to download the programs to remote devices.



    Also, most shows are available for free 24 hours after broadcast. I've usually watched shows like Lost and Lie To Me online, a day after broadcast and for free, although with (limited) commercials. I believe there are stats that show that the average American consumer watches five hours of TV a day. That number has always sounded high to me, but assuming it's accurate (and let's just count weekdays), that's about 110 hours a month. Let's assume that half the shows are half-hour shows and half are hour shows and they all cost $1 each. That would cost $165 a month, which is far higher than most people's cable bills.



    So if Jobs can't convince the program owners to participate in a subscription plan and he can't get control of cable set-top boxes, this is never going to be able to be a major success, IMO. In addition, you're never going to have simultaneous availablity with broadcast unless the downloadable versions include commercials that you can't skip, and the trade unions archaic stand on how they want to be paid for online commercials is preventing most shows from adding spots to digital downloads (at least ones with live actors). Because of that, networks and program owners can't replace their broadcast revenue streams with downloads at 99 cents and as such, they are not going to give up their exclusivity, even if it is only 24 hours these days.
  • Reply 70 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Masteric View Post


    The first one flopped and it became a "hobby" item for Apple. Now that the refresh is coming out, Apple continues to say this is a "hobby" item. That way they explain the lackluster sales. They call it a hobby because that allows them to say that they didn't put their full weight behind it and that is why it failed.



    It failed because they put their full weight behind it and few people were interested.



    Apple hasn't said anything. They don't even acknowledge that the product exists.
  • Reply 71 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    The DVR business is not really profitable as Steve Jobs said - The cost of getting it from your cable provider is too cheap. Look at Tivo and see how they are doing in this business - not very well. The cost of the hardware compared from a cable company lease (which Apple is unlikely to get) is drastic. And the cable cos are not very open to competing on a level playing field with anybody else.



    DVR will die and streaming (vid on demand) will be the big winner. The question will be is Cable+VoD to one point, vs Itunes and content to you wherever you are (start on an iPhone/Pad, move to an ITV when you walk in the house), is the big deal you really can't 'easily' get your cable company to help you build. Again, to make this valuable to Apple, the model has to be 'just works' for a person who doesn't know 'root' from 'boot' from 'galoot.' (the point click drool crowd).



    Look for NFL/NBA/MLB.com to monetize game feeds this way, as it fits into Apple's distribution model. If apple gets 30% of a $2.99 cost to play the game, they'd be happy... Let the sports franchisee pipe the feed to Apple's NC facility, which streams and stores it realtime, manages the sale of the product on their storefront.... all will be quite happy. Add in iAd revenue and 'push notifications' to get say, free updates from other games (click on the pop-up, view the highlight, and click return to watch the game in question.



    Heck for baseball, just the fact I can lose all the commercials... I'd love to watch a game starting 40 minutes after game start, and be done at the same time the game finishes, compressing out the commercials, being replaced by iAds at the bottom, or click throughs.



    home DVR will be done not at the iTV, but at the mac desktop in the Apple Model (like burning CDs). That way the 'Express written consent of the NFL' is out of Apple's hands and on the individuals.
  • Reply 72 of 203
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.



    From what I understand Disney already owns ABC and ESPN which was the network I was thinking of. I even heard that ABC was on the selling block a few months ago. But those are just whispers. They own a lot of cable channels which is also interesting.



    I would love for them to get HBO but it's owned by Time Warner which is a cable company. This is the reason why I think Apple should purchase a network. The cable companies have been playing hardball by buying networks and sports properties.
  • Reply 73 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post


    Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.



    Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?
  • Reply 74 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    They didn't partr with Hulu. They just accepted the hulu app into the App Store. Hulu is owned by the big networks. You can't deal with Hulu without dealing with them because Hulu is merely a middleman.



    As of now the networks have rejected any subscription services. A few years ago NBC wanted to offer packages, but from I understand, they wanted to offer a couple of hit shows along with crap.



    While it wasn't technically a partnership, it was promoted by apple. All they need to do is convince Hulu to write another app for the iTV, and promote it heavily during the unveiling. All the major shows are already on there. Instant problem solver.
  • Reply 75 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s easy to have a successful product when you sell it at a loss.



    So you say.... and you know this information how. Blowing it out your rear.
  • Reply 76 of 203
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?



    The majority shareholder which makes even more sense for Apple to buy.
  • Reply 77 of 203
    If you look at this report carefully, you'll notice that S Jobs hasn't been quoted as saying anything about Apple TV, aside from what he said last June. Bloomberg--and AppleInsider--are simply using "creative" journalism to put words into Jobs mouth. The commenters here are a good example of the viral nature of the Internet in general: they took the bait, hook, line and sinker.



    And besides, they're having Jobs talk about a supposed Apple product that hasn't even been announced--it too is total conjecture! Bloomsberg is only guessing that this will happen, they too have no idea of Apple's plans.



    So you have a bunch of people here assuming that all of this is fact, when none of it is, it's a complete house of cards!
  • Reply 78 of 203
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by roontoon View Post


    So you say.... and you know this information how. Blowing it out your rear.



    I know this because I?ve used my brain. If Apple starts selling every Mac for 99¢ do you think they would be selling more or less then they are now? Do you think they would make more or less money from Mac sales?
  • Reply 79 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?



    HE only owns something like 7% and that's all due to Pixar. First Disney would never sell its own network, so that's off the table. ESPN and ABC are cash cows and cornerstones of their entire business strategy. It'd be like asking Jobs to sell his software branch. The movies are shown on TV, sports and ESPN are integrated into the parks. At this point its about a total experience.
  • Reply 80 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post


    Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.



    CBS is now owned by the CBS Corporation, a successor to Viacom and a conglomerate in their own right that partly owns Paramount Pictures.



    Anyway it doesn't matter. The stations themselves are just middlemen in many respects. NBC for example airs both "30 Rock" and "Chuck". 30 Rock is completely produced in-house; NBC developed and produces the show. They sign a deal with the producers of the show (Tina Fey) to work under contract for NBC, and NBC owns the distribution rights. But Chuck for example is developed & produced by a production company (College Hill Pictures & Warner Brothers TV). NBC signed a contract with WB to produce the TV show and give NBC the exclusive first-broadcast rights. However WB/College Hill own the distribution rights, and therefore can control if the show ends up on iTunes or not. Even ESPN is a middleman of sorts; the NCAA, NFL, etc. own the distribution rights to their content.



    This is how some Fox shows like House are on iTunes (because it's produced by NBC, not Fox) and others do not.



    Apple would have to buy production companies and studios, not just the broadcast TV outlets.
Sign In or Register to comment.