Apple eyes move into original video programming, report says

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 86
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Has Tim Cook forgotten what the word focus means? It seems to me Apple has a pretty full plate right now:

    • Redesigned iOS and OS X with a ton of new features that needs a lot more polish and bug fixing
    • Redesigned iWork apps that still need attention and improvement
    • Apple Watch and watchOS
    • HealthKit
    • HomeKit
    • ResearchKit
    • CarPlay
    • ApplePay
    • Apple News
    • Apple Music
    • Proactive
    • Partnership with IBM
    • Partnership with Cisco
    • Partnership with US military in wearables space
    • Apple Store redesigns (and expansion in China)
    • Campus 2
    • New ?TV with SDK
    • Possible iPad "Pro"
    • Project Titan
    • And god knows what else that haven't been rumored about

    I think Cook needs to start saying no. When there's too many irons in the fire you end up with a lot of stuff but not a lot of best in class stuff. I don't think Apple needs to get into the content creation business. They just need to be the platform that everybody wants to be on.

    But maybe this is just Apple using its cash to buy up exclusives. I'm not really a fan of exclusives but that probably wouldn't be as much of a resource drain as Apple getting into the original content business.

    Why'd you separate different parts of iOS?
    Here's the thing: most of these items are software related and operate between each other. Many of these items don't live on their own.

    Apple has had partnerships before.

    Why is iPad pro separate from iPad?
  • Reply 62 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Why'd you separate different parts of iOS?
    Here's the thing: most of these items are software related and operate between each other. Many of these items don't live on their own.

    Apple has had partnerships before.

    Why is iPad pro separate from iPad?

    I know all these "kits" are part of iOS but the point is they're new and require attention.I listed iPad "Pro" because from all the rumors it sounds like it's not going to be just an existing iPad with a bigger screen. And is probably a product that will need better software than the current iOS for iPad to be successful. Apple doesn't have unlimited bandwith or resources.
  • Reply 63 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I see zero problem with Apple expanding their product line.

    You say too many irons in the fire?  Guess what?  Apple has multiple fires dude.  I would agree with you if Apple was running out of money and in debt (like Amazon) or their revenue was shrinking and new products were not profitable (like Google).  But Apple is making MASSIVE profits and has massive excess cash.  This is EXACTLY the time to invest in new products/services that will carry Apple through the next decade.

    What if Apple was aggressive with streaming music 5 years ago?  They would be dominating streaming right now.
    What if Apple was aggressive with streaming video 5 years ago?  They would be destroying Netflix right now.
    You need to be aggressive.  You need to aggressively build your ecosystem.  Even if it means 50% of those shots miss.  Apple = ecosystem.  An ecosystem that is constantly evolving and growing.  And Apple needs to evolve and grow also.  

    I don't disagree that Apple needs to evolve and grow but that doesn't mean they have to do everything. And I think one could make the argument that Apple has made a lot of changes over the past 3 or so years and user experience and "polish" has suffered a bit. I don't want Apple to just throw stuff out there and then jump to the next shiny object. Apple doesn't need to be in the content creation business, they just need to provide a platform that content creators want to be on first.
  • Reply 64 of 86
    sog35 wrote: »
    Do you want me a total stranger to say YOUR FATHER would do this.  Or YOUR FATHER would do that.  Or YOUR MOTHER would have cheated with that guy?  

    Leave it alone man.  

    You don't know Steve so I have the right to tell you to stop saying you know EXACTLY what he would or would not do.  You don't know.  The only people who know are his Wife, guys like Tim Cook, Woz, ect.  

    You're a bit unstable on this issue...it's is not uncommon at all to reference history when discussing the present or future. And if you have checked, history is largely filled with people who have passed on. Understanding past behaviors can help inform the present.

    Further there is no disrespecting or disparaging anyone here. In fact, I was referencing a positive quality in Jobs that I think at times is increasingly missing at Apple right now.

    The real issue is Apple's approach to user experience...they must be careful that expanding the ecosystem doesn't detract from their one of the jewels in their crown. Referencing here how thoughtful Steve was to this principle is a) positive, and b) applicable in discussing the current management team and the example I gave regarding Apple Music.

    And stepping out from the Jobs discussion, can people not talk disrespectfully of Mussolini because he is dead? Your blanket statement about what can and can't be said because someone has passed is not consistent or logical.
  • Reply 65 of 86
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    I see zero problem with Apple expanding their product line.

     

    You say too many irons in the fire?  Guess what?  Apple has multiple fires dude.  I would agree with you if Apple was running out of money and in debt (like Amazon) or their revenue was shrinking and new products were not profitable (like Google).  But Apple is making MASSIVE profits and has massive excess cash.  This is EXACTLY the time to invest in new products/services that will carry Apple through the next decade.

     

    What if Apple was aggressive with streaming music 5 years ago?  They would be dominating streaming right now.

    What if Apple was aggressive with streaming video 5 years ago?  They would be destroying Netflix right now.

    You need to be aggressive.  You need to aggressively build your ecosystem.  Even if it means 50% of those shots miss.  Apple = ecosystem.  An ecosystem that is constantly evolving and growing.  And Apple needs to evolve and grow also.  


     

    Everything on this list relates to the core principles which the founders of the company espoused (if I may be so bold as to be allowed to speak for them in any way) as either expansion of existing products and markets or logical extensions into new ones.   Many of these are ongoing (refining the OS and applications) or upgrades (iPad Pro).    Considering Apple is one of the largest companies in the world, with a warchest that overshadows many nations, developing original television programming for an established product line is hardly out of order.  

  • Reply 66 of 86

    When TG were at the Beeb, they could get away with so much, simply because the main audience is UK and we have fairly broad minds. But Netflix has this worldwide audience to satisfy, so TG will be so watered down to make it as inoffensive as possible to Netflix fans.

    Just watch a few eps of the Beeb TG, lots of 'in' jokes most Brits are guaranteed to get, because they know who is watching. Not gonna happen once an international producer is paying the costs.

    Mark my words.

  • Reply 67 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    I think one major pillar for content Apple should focus on is live Sports in the US.  Specifically the NFL.

    DirectTV has the rights to all non-local NFL games.  They are paying $1.5 billion a year to the NFL for it.  Even though they only have about 2-3 million subscribers who pay $300 a year.  The are losing a TON of money on that contract.  Apple needs to negotiate with DirectTV to buy NFL subscriptions in bulk.  Even if it means not making a dime it would be a huge boost for AppleTV users.

    Why would DirectTV do this?  Cause they are losing several hundred million a year on their NFL package.  Adding 5 million subs would be a huge boost to them.
    This I could get behind. But I can't get behind is the idea of Apple producing its own content. Apple doesn't need to do that. Need to piss off existing content partners. Apple isn't creating it's own homegrown content for Apple News. They don't need to do it for ?TV either. Just provide the platform and let consumers download whatever content they want.
  • Reply 68 of 86
    sog35 wrote: »
    You can bring up what Steve actually did.
    Or what Mussolini actually did.

    You are treading on dangerous water when you say Steve WOULD DO THIS TODAY.  Or Steve would NOT DO THIS TODAY.  You don't know what he would or would not do.  That's my point.

    You could have made your point about the user experience without dragging Steve in the mud.  

    Let the man rest in peace.

    We can differ in opinion about whether one can surmise or extrapolate the "right" thing to do today by looking at the examples in the past, but for you to consistently saying I'm "dragging his name through the mud" or not letting him "rest in peace" is out of place. I'm doing neither, and my words do not state or imply this.
  • Reply 69 of 86
    woodbine wrote: »
    When TG were at the Beeb, they could get away with so much, simply because the main audience is UK and we have fairly broad minds. But Netflix has this worldwide audience to satisfy, so TG will be so watered down to make it as inoffensive as possible to Netflix fans.
    Just watch a few eps of the Beeb TG, lots of 'in' jokes most Brits are guaranteed to get, because they know who is watching. Not gonna happen once an international producer is paying the costs.
    Mark my words.

    There is NO WAY Top Gear will get soft, unless they simply lose there touch. There success is already worldwide, and it's based on a decidedly non-PC approach...

    The bigger challenge is they don't have the "conflict" of the BBC over their heads...that created a lot of the faux tension and pushing the boundaries, just like Howard Stern leveraged for years on terrestrial radio...
  • Reply 70 of 86
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I know all these "kits" are part of iOS but the point is they're new and require attention.I listed iPad "Pro" because from all the rumors it sounds like it's not going to be just an existing iPad with a bigger screen. And is probably a product that will need better software than the current iOS for iPad to be successful. Apple doesn't have unlimited bandwith or resources.

    At one point, iTunes was new, same with the App Store, the iPad, the iPhone, the Apple TV, iLife.

    As with those items, Apple didn't just release everything at once. In addition they're all related. It's not like Apple is working on fridges, semiconductors, and planes.
  • Reply 71 of 86
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    rogifan wrote: »
    This I could get behind. But I can't get behind is the idea of Apple producing its own content. Apple doesn't need to do that. Need to piss off existing content partners. Apple isn't creating it's own homegrown content for Apple News. They don't need to do it for ?TV either. Just provide the platform and let consumers download whatever content they want.

    It won't piss off partners. The networks probably have first shot at the programming and the studios like to shop around anyways. In some ways, you need users an incentive to get the Apple TV.
  • Reply 72 of 86
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post



    If you want to get viewers Sports should be your focus. Apple should spect $30B buying up rights to sports worldwide for the next 10 years and these Apple TVs would sell themselves. I know many people in my country have Sky for their sports channels, and what a dumb company to have a monopoly on sports.

     

    Why would Apple care about Sports viewers?  It was reported a while back that only 4% of Cable Subscribers watch the sports channels and yet 100% are subsidizing those few people for that content!!!   ESPN is not going to give that up.  The price is NOT worth it. 

     

    What is Smarter is to say give the finger to these TV Networks and become more like HBO!!!  People are paying $15 a month for HBO.  $8 for Netflix. Netflix wants to be more like HBO.  The Content from EPIX and others is getting so costly and it on other services that just isn't making it worth it.  Instead, creating your own content means it's exclusive to you.  It's not here one day and gone the next which gets annoying on Netflix with things coming and then going.  Create your own programming and fill in the holes with some movies and other content to make the subscription price worth it.   Apple has a ton of money.  Here's a good enough reason to spend some  of it.  Even if it's just breaking even, you're getting people into the Apple eco system. That would be a plus for Apple.

     

    Networks don't want to play ball for what is really FREE with a Antenna.  I think Re-Transmission fee's are a JOKE as it is.  They pocket all that money and then get money in commercials on top of that.  They used to manage just fine in the past without these fee's.  The prices are just getting out of control.  CBS wants $6 for their content alone.  Really?  Start adding that up, it's just crazy.  No thanks, which is why I cut the cord.

  • Reply 73 of 86
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dean Martelli View Post



    If Apple is going to back up the truck for someone it should be Jon Stewart. Have Jon head up a new, legitimate, non-political party offiliated news network. Jon would be on air in some capacity. He's one of the best interviewers in the business. Go get Jon. This would be the foundation to draw subscribers and build a new network/original programming.

     

    No thanks to that far, far leftest!!!   Let him be gone forever!!! 

  • Reply 74 of 86
    jbdragon wrote: »
    Why would Apple care about Sports viewers?  It was reported a while back that only 4% of Cable Subscribers watch the sports channels and yet 100% are subsidizing those few people for that content!!!   ESPN is not going to give that up.  The price is NOT worth it. 

    What is Smarter is to say give the finger to these TV Networks and become more like HBO!!!  People are paying $15 a month for HBO.  $8 for Netflix. Netflix wants to be more like HBO.  The Content from EPIX and others is getting so costly and it on other services that just isn't making it worth it.  Instead, creating your own content means it's exclusive to you.  It's not here one day and gone the next which gets annoying on Netflix with things coming and then going.  Create your own programming and fill in the holes with some movies and other content to make the subscription price worth it.   Apple has a ton of money.  Here's a good enough reason to spend some  of it.  Even if it's just breaking even, you're getting people into the Apple eco system. That would be a plus for Apple.

    Networks don't want to play ball for what is really FREE with a Antenna.  I think Re-Transmission fee's are a JOKE as it is.  They pocket all that money and then get money in commercials on top of that.  They used to manage just fine in the past without these fee's.  The prices are just getting out of control.  CBS wants $6 for their content alone.  Really?  Start adding that up, it's just crazy.  No thanks, which is why I cut the cord.

    Sorry, cannot follow what you are saying....4% of cable subscribers watch "sports channels" You mean any type of sports content?

    You have a link on that?

    It sounds ludicrous...sports is an enormous revenue generating category. I'm not sure how sports leagues can get such enormous multiyear broadcast rights contracts with almost no one watching...which is just about what any one sports' piece of 4% would represent...

    Live sports, and live broadcast as well, are very important, or many people will not leave cable or satellite. And the ala carte pricing models need to add up to be more affordable than current cable/satellite rates.
  • Reply 75 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jungmark wrote: »
    It won't piss off partners. The networks probably have first shot at the programming and the studios like to shop around anyways. In some ways, you need users an incentive to get the Apple TV.

    Apple didn't need original programming to get people to buy iOS devices. They don't with ?TV either. Look what they're doing with Apple News. They're providing a platform for publishers big and small not becoming a news organization. Apple just needs to provide the best platform that everyone wants to be on. Buy up exclusives if they have to but they don't need to be a movie or TV studio just like they don't need to be a record company,
  • Reply 76 of 86
    sog35 wrote: »
    I think one major pillar for content Apple should focus on is live Sports in the US.  Specifically the NFL.

    DirectTV has the rights to all non-local NFL games.  They are paying $1.5 billion a year to the NFL for it.  Even though they only have about 2-3 million subscribers who pay $300 a year.  The are losing a TON of money on that contract.  Apple needs to negotiate with DirectTV to buy NFL subscriptions in bulk.  Even if it means not making a dime it would be a huge boost for AppleTV users.

    Why would DirectTV do this?  Cause they are losing several hundred million a year on their NFL package.  Adding 5 million subs would be a huge boost to them.

    I agree live sports is important...for all leagues however.

    The Sunday Ticket Package is a tough concept for me, because there are so many games each week that are available outside of the package. You can watch your local team outside of Sunday Ticket, and beyond that there are multiple games on Sunday afternoon, Sunday evening, Thuraday night, Monday night - all in your basic package typically. There's only so many games you can watch, so it's really mostly for super hard core or geo-displaced fans.

    I'm sure Directv also picked up a lot of revenue by simply by new subscribers coming on board, and secondary sales of other packages.

    I don't know how Apple could buy the package from them...it's possible only a small fraction of satellite box owners have an Apple TV, so even if it could be worked out contractually, there would likely be a loss in customer base at the start.

    Perhaps leagues need to forgo exclusive contracts, and make the package available to multiple providers at a lower price and let the marketplace decide where they want to watch (so perhaps $350M for a season, and let directv, Apple, Netflix, whomever, buy it - or per subscriber, but with a minimum contract amount...
  • Reply 77 of 86
    rogifan wrote: »
    Has Tim Cook forgotten what the word focus means?

    why do you criticize him as if you'd read a press release and not yet another unconfirmed rumor on a rumors site? could it be because you're biased? have an axe to grind?
  • Reply 78 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    why do you criticize him as if you'd read a press release and not yet another unconfirmed rumor on a rumors site? could it be because you're biased? have an axe to grind?

    This story originated from Variety not Digitimes. I have a feeling it has some validity.
  • Reply 79 of 86
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    This is your opinion.  

    I'll trust Mr Cook and the executives at Apple instead of  you.

    Of course it's my opinion just like most of what everybody else posts here is their opinion. Give me one good reason why Apple needs to get into the content creation business (and I don't mean buying up exclusive distribution rights to someone else's content).
  • Reply 80 of 86

    As the Itunes Music free trial is expiring and people not signing up.  It's a clear indication that content isn't the only reason.  Many people stay with their content provider due to familiarity and early design wins.  

     

    In this industry being 1st can be pivotal.  Original content or not won't matter.  

Sign In or Register to comment.