Okay with original content but add in streaming decent movies like Netflix and you’ve got a deal, Apple.
Apple should at least try to take subscribers away from Netflix and Amazon. It's as though Apple doesn't have the desire to compete with other companies. If Netflix can afford to do it, then why not Apple?
That’s the one complaint I have about iTunes. Rent or buy only. I can see the point for newly released and blockbuster movies but add streaming of the older titles. If Netflix can work out a deal with content providers to do this then so can Apple.
I'm doing the 3 months free Apple Music because I just got the Homepod to play around with. But after that I'm going to cancel. I just don't play much music to make it worth paying $10 a month. Maybe $5 a month. Throw in Apple's magazine subscription service and Original video content and whatever else, maybe it does make that $10 worth it to me.
Google is already doing this with paying for Youtube and getting no commercials, and Google Music and so forth for $10.
I'm doing the 3 months free Apple Music because I just got the Homepod to play around with. But after that I'm going to cancel. I just don't play much music to make it worth paying $10 a month. Maybe $5 a month. Throw in Apple's magazine subscription service and Original video content and whatever else, maybe it does make that $10 worth it to me.
Google is already doing this with paying for Youtube and getting no commercials, and Google Music and so forth for $10.
If you have a student/education email I believe you can get iTunes Music for $5/month.
As far as a streaming video service goes, I’d be more than surprised, shocked even, if Apple didn’t offer up a large portion of the iTunes library to go along with their original content. But it's not going to last very long.
Consumers in the U.S. are going to get screwed over in a couple of years - with the merging of all these large content producing and distribution companies, they will all soon have their own streaming services that we'll need to subscribe to.
Disney has already started pulling away from "partners" in favor of building out their own streaming service.
AT&T just bought TimeWarner! You can bet that they'll do whatever they can to wring as much as they can out of their customers. With Net Neutrality gone, I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T started charging subscribers a surcharge if you want stream content from a competitors service.
That's why we're seeing all these others get into this game, they won't have a choice soon, but to produce and stream their own content.
This is why I think Apple should acquire Sony; Movies, TV Shows, Music, Gaming, component manufacturing and fabrication, a very large electronics name brand to run Apple's platforms; iOS on Sony phones, macOS on Sony PCs, tvOS on Sony TV's, etc.
The multiple content producers wont work over time. Cutting out the middle man in streaming is like Coke deciding to cut out retail stores and going with their own stores selling only coke and Fanta.
What do people want from a streaming service. Some original shows, some TV shows, not so much these days movies. Netflix is not actually any good for movies. From a digital download store like iTunes, the most popular would be movies, perhaps but its a close run thing with TV.
However theres no incentive to get a Disney streaming service unless there are no Disney movies anywhere else. If I can get the Disney movie from iTunes ( even after a delay) thats what I am going to do. If I can't, I am not going to subscribe for just one movie. Or even the catalog. Im sure I have some disney movies in my personal catalog but I can't see myself signing up for their old movies, or whatever few they will produce in any one year.
Modern TV shows are a bit different, it is definitely true that you gain subscribers with a GOT or a Westworld, but thats because these need to be watched ( for social reasons) as they are broadcast. Water cooler moments. Even there, people expect not just an internet package but a television package. And those kinda TV shows are like unicorns.
All that Disney and the others will do here is collapse their revenue as they withdraw their content from other streaming or Digital download services, and get some desultory number of subscribers who want to watch Pinocchio again, if they can't illegally download it. There may be some pressure for kids TV shows from kids but thats not permanent either. Or they may gain subscribers with some 3 month free offer when a good movie is released but that will be ephemeral.
This isn't the way capitalism works, these guys are wholesalers, or producers, they need a general retailer to take their stuff and sell it to the public. I have Netflix. I have Amazon prime. I could lose the latter but it comes cheap with prime, but I rarely use it. Even if the catalog of movies disappears from either of these ( and neither are great) nothing is going to tempt me to sign up for any specific content provider, ever. Except free trials.
The success of "HBO Go" completely proves that you are in for a rude awakening, my optimistic friend.
And Disney does in fact plan on keeping their movies to themselves when it comes to streaming. They've already stated that their deal with Netflix is not being renewed, so their content will be pulled. Even now in iTunes, they are the only studio that does not offer 4K versions of their content. So the only place you'll be able to stream their content is to subscribe to their service. Disney is the largest producer of content in the world, this isn't about being able to watch an old "Disney" movie, most of the most popular and successful studios are owned by Disney, including LucasFilms, Pixar, and Marvel Studios.
... but IMHO it's not the best of ideas from a human standpoint, or healthy for the consumer and overall economy either to have a handful of massive and wealthy-beyond-need techs be so involved in trying to control so many parts of our day while snatching up as much of our disposable income for themselves as they can. The devices we carry, what we're permitted to use on them, the news we see, the music we listen to, the casual TV viewing we do, the tech in our homes and the tech in our transportation, even the way we communicate with each other.
I hope Umbrella Corp stays forever just a movie plotline, but it's not so far-fetched anymore.
It's uncharted territory, for sure. Right now aggressive expansion so you ride the advantages of network effects. Digital ignores borders in favor of scale. Extinction of local newspapers in mid-size cities like Denver and Cincinnati mean less oversight of municipal government and higher cost of debt bonds due to perceived inefficiency, according to recent report (by Pew I believe). Yet tremendous benefits from these biggies are obvious: Amazon effect is cited even in Japan for deflationary pressures....
Anyway, I hope someone at Apple asks themselves, Will viewers really wish to see Apple’s logo in the beginning and end of a film or show? Will they want to be reminded of work when they seek a bit of escapism? Will the inevitable “offensive show” or “dull film” begin to take more bites out of that hallowed Apple logo? An Apple-branded streaming service seems okay. But sure hope Tim Cook finds a different way to brand artist content. And maybe different brand for whole effort, like YouTube within Google.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
Apple tried to not be a producer in Video, but all the content producers are keeping all their beans (Netflx, HBO, HULU, etc) and won't play ball on integration so Apple had to get into it.
Apple offers integrated experiences and not being able to do a full media one is an handicap to its usual MO.
Owning the distribution channel and the way the media can be consumed is a huge advantage over the content producers like NetFlix and Disney and they should take full advantage of that.
The content producers don't care were they work, they'll sell their series, films to whoever gives them good money, creative control and a decent outlet for their products.
Okay with original content but add in streaming decent movies like Netflix and you’ve got a deal, Apple.
Apple should at least try to take subscribers away from Netflix and Amazon. It's as though Apple doesn't have the desire to compete with other companies. If Netflix can afford to do it, then why not Apple?
That’s the one complaint I have about iTunes. Rent or buy only. I can see the point for newly released and blockbuster movies but add streaming of the older titles. If Netflix can work out a deal with content providers to do this then so can Apple.
In fact, Netflix is rapidly losing access from major producers like Disney and Netflix guarded access to their own content.
Nobody just wants to be a producer of content, like in music, and not control their destiny and pricing power like in music.
The way video content has been sold is very different than from music and nobody in that industry wants to go that way.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
Apple tried to not be a producer in Video, but all the content producers are keeping all their beans (Netflx, HBO, HULU, etc) and won't play ball on integration so Apple had to get into it.
Apple offers integrated experiences and not being able to do a full media one is an handicap to its usual MO.
Owning the distribution channel and the way the media can be consumed is a huge advantage over the content producers like NetFlix and Disney and they should take full advantage of that.
The content producers don't care were they work, they'll sell their series, films to whoever gives them good money, creative control and a decent outlet for their products.
But AT&T, Verizon & Comcast own the distribution channels. And, they are rapidly going after the production side as well. That doesn't leave a lot of room for Apple -- particularly in an area for which they have no experience or expertise...
How about bundling iTunes, match and iCloud Storage in this too?
Like Amazon Prime, the whole enchilada.
I would LOVE the option to simply pay for Two-day shipping without having to pay for all the rest of the crud they shoehorn into my Prime Membership that I literally never use. Amazon Video is the discount VCR tape bin of streaming services.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
^^^THIS^^^ I can't tell you how much 'new music' in my Apple Music recommendations is Youtube level talent that rhymes smoke with smoke while singing along to their default settings midi controlled casio keyboard.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
^^^THIS^^^ I can't tell you how much 'new music' in my Apple Music recommendations is Youtube level talent that rhymes smoke with smoke while singing along to their default settings midi controlled casio keyboard.
Is it worse to rhyme two words that are the exactly the same or to force a rhyme that aren't even close? 🤔
Really is all about the price, but we know the first thing they’ll probably do is raise it, I think the £10 per month fee for Apple Music is perfect, but they’d probably make it £15-20 for Music + original TV content, which I’m still skeptikal of.
Really is all about the price, but we know the first thing they’ll probably do is raise it, I think the £10 per month fee for Apple Music is perfect, but they’d probably make it £15-20 for Music + original TV content, which I’m still skeptikal of.
Throwing in music seems likely if Apple's deals with content owners allow it. I think YouTube Premium, nee YouTube Red, is doing that.
... Yes they have tons of money and yes they are working with famous in-demand talent. But that doesn’t necessarily make for great content.
Apple obviously needs its House of Cards, Game of Thrones, or Handmaid’s Tail to drive users to the platform. Original content is key but it has to be kick ass original content. ...
Or, they could get back to things they actually know how to do (and that people want). It feels like Apple is just jumping into all this stuff because they think they have to be in it, with 'new category services' $$$ projections glowing in their eyes.
adm1 said: It's the way forward unfortunately, and in the name of anti-monopoly/competition sometimes. ... While the intent was to reduce prices for the customer by creating competition, all it did was make it more expensive as you then had to pay for 2 subscriptions.
Yeah, I'm not sure how it would introduce competition, though. The whole point is to have something exclusive to lock people into your service. It is anti-competitive. Competition is when you have similar competing services, but the more dissimilar they become the less competition.
I guess it is going to happen, as it isn't illegal. I'm just not welcoming it. I liked when Netflix was just a service that offered the most possible content from everyone under one roof.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
I agree with everything you've said except News. We need more curated news about as much as that 301st channel.
How about bundling iTunes, match and iCloud Storage in this too?
Like Amazon Prime, the whole enchilada.
The business analysts probably are saying... 'but, you could make more money splitting it up and milking everyone for all you can.'
jbdragon said: Google is already doing this with paying for Youtube and getting no commercials, and Google Music and so forth for $10.
And, then after they get lots of people used to paying the monthly fees, the business geniuses will decide to start adding in some ads, because then you can make even more money. It's just the way of stupid, and has happened over and over again.... until they ruin whatever the platform is enough that people jump to some new platform.
mjtomlin said: And Disney does in fact plan on keeping their movies to themselves when it comes to streaming. They've already stated that their deal with Netflix is not being renewed, so their content will be pulled. ...
Yep, and then, eventually, people start realizing that the more and more things they look for on Netflix isn't there and they start losing customers... hoping they make up the difference with the draw to their 'original content' and pretty soon you have a new 'network' instead of a universal content service (which is why people went to Netflix in the first place).
GeorgeBMac said: But AT&T, Verizon & Comcast own the distribution channels. And, they are rapidly going after the production side as well. That doesn't leave a lot of room for Apple -- particularly in an area for which they have no experience or expertise...
Bingo! They are one step up the food-chain too far to play and win this particular game. That said, it is also more destructive the lower you go, so while this is irritating to me (with IMO detrimental outcomes), it should be illegal at the ISP level.
The analogy might be music which went from high quality by being highly curated and well produced to mostly junk produced by some girl sitting in her living room.
Apple did well in music when they acted as an outlet for the producers of music. Actually, they didn't do "well", they revolutionized the industry. But, as they got more and more into generating shows about music they have done less well. Far less well.
They have an excellent chance at doing a good job curating news by accumulating and publishing news from other, professional sources -- just as they did with music.
But, they should leave the job of creating and producing videos and TV to the pros.... We already have 300 channels of junk. We really don't need 301.
Apple tried to not be a producer in Video, but all the content producers are keeping all their beans (Netflx, HBO, HULU, etc) and won't play ball on integration so Apple had to get into it.
Apple offers integrated experiences and not being able to do a full media one is an handicap to its usual MO.
Owning the distribution channel and the way the media can be consumed is a huge advantage over the content producers like NetFlix and Disney and they should take full advantage of that.
The content producers don't care were they work, they'll sell their series, films to whoever gives them good money, creative control and a decent outlet for their products.
But AT&T, Verizon & Comcast own the distribution channels. And, they are rapidly going after the production side as well. That doesn't leave a lot of room for Apple -- particularly in an area for which they have no experience or expertise...
They own the pipes, the channel is also how it is presented and marketd to the user, which they are pretty horrible at in general on the content side (ratings have been in declines for years and we've got cable cutting for a reason).
They're not making cable boxes are they?
They've been very very very lazy for a long long time.
It's a cash cow, and people hate cable in general. They're not starting on a good basis.
With net neutrality screwed, they have a chance in the US at catching up by putting a lot of tarifs on traffic,
But, that's just the US and they can't rely on that saving them from the onslaught globally.
But making more money on the pipes, still doesn't give you a better relationship with the end user.
The channel is a much more elaborate experience than it was a ways back.
Have a intimate, daily relationship with users is a huge step up from the one way, pay your bill once a month, relationship those companies now have.
Acting like it's a natural fit is a bit weird.
ATT & Comcast have had decades to get it right and basically failed.
How about bundling iTunes, match and iCloud Storage in this too?
Like Amazon Prime, the whole enchilada.
The business analysts probably are saying... 'but, you could make more money splitting it up and milking everyone for all you can.'
jbdragon said: Google is already doing this with paying for Youtube and getting no commercials, and Google Music and so forth for $10.
And, then after they get lots of people used to paying the monthly fees, the business geniuses will decide to start adding in some ads, because then you can make even more money. It's just the way of stupid, and has happened over and over again.... until they ruin whatever the platform is enough that people jump to some new platform.
mjtomlin said: And Disney does in fact plan on keeping their movies to themselves when it comes to streaming. They've already stated that their deal with Netflix is not being renewed, so their content will be pulled. ...
Yep, and then, eventually, people start realizing that the more and more things they look for on Netflix isn't there and they start losing customers... hoping they make up the difference with the draw to their 'original content' and pretty soon you have a new 'network' instead of a universal content service (which is why people went to Netflix in the first place).
GeorgeBMac said: But AT&T, Verizon & Comcast own the distribution channels. And, they are rapidly going after the production side as well. That doesn't leave a lot of room for Apple -- particularly in an area for which they have no experience or expertise...
Bingo! They are one step up the food-chain too far to play and win this particular game. That said, it is also more destructive the lower you go, so while this is irritating to me (with IMO detrimental outcomes), it should be illegal at the ISP level.
Hum, no, the closer you are to the actual client, the more you interact with them, the better you're situation is. That's how it is in most of business.
foggyhill said: They own the pipes, the channel is also how it is presented and marketd to the user, which they are pretty horrible at in general on the content side (ratings have been in declines for years and we've got cable cutting for a reason).
They're not making cable boxes are they?
They've been very very very lazy for a long long time.
It's a cash cow, and people hate cable in general. They're not starting on a good basis.
With net neutrality screwed, they have a chance in the US at catching up by putting a lot of tarifs on traffic,
But, that's just the US and they can't rely on that saving them from the onslaught globally.
But making more money on the pipes, still doesn't give you a better relationship with the end user.
The channel is a much more elaborate experience than it was a ways back.
Have a intimate, daily relationship with users is a huge step up from the one way, pay your bill once a month, relationship those companies now have.
Acting like it's a natural fit is a bit weird.
ATT & Comcast have had decades to get it right and basically failed.
They may get there, but I would not count on it.
What's the solution/alternative, though? It's basically xyz telco/ISP + services. And the more the ISPs buy up the services, the worse things will get.
re: net neutrality - are there other places that have it? the USA never really had it implemented, though I suppose the striking down of what got started (as problematic as it was), has emboldened them.
foggyhill said: Hum, no, the closer you are to the actual client, the more you interact with them, the better you're situation is. That's how it is in most of business.
No, I mean the ISPs control the end/bottom layer. You have to go through them to get to Apple, Netflix, etc.
foggyhill said: They own the pipes, the channel is also how it is presented and marketd to the user, which they are pretty horrible at in general on the content side (ratings have been in declines for years and we've got cable cutting for a reason).
They're not making cable boxes are they?
They've been very very very lazy for a long long time.
It's a cash cow, and people hate cable in general. They're not starting on a good basis.
With net neutrality screwed, they have a chance in the US at catching up by putting a lot of tarifs on traffic,
But, that's just the US and they can't rely on that saving them from the onslaught globally.
But making more money on the pipes, still doesn't give you a better relationship with the end user.
The channel is a much more elaborate experience than it was a ways back.
Have a intimate, daily relationship with users is a huge step up from the one way, pay your bill once a month, relationship those companies now have.
Acting like it's a natural fit is a bit weird.
ATT & Comcast have had decades to get it right and basically failed.
They may get there, but I would not count on it.
What's the solution/alternative, though? It's basically xyz telco/ISP + services. And the more the ISPs buy up the services, the worse things will get.
re: net neutrality - are there other places that have it? the USA never really had it implemented, though I suppose the striking down of what got started (as problematic as it was), has emboldened them.
foggyhill said: Hum, no, the closer you are to the actual client, the more you interact with them, the better you're situation is. That's how it is in most of business.
No, I mean the ISPs control the end/bottom layer. You have to go through them to get to Apple, Netflix, etc.
But, that's not interaction, paying the bill once a month is not a "relationship" .
You can't force people to love you. They'll deal with you like they deal with the dentist, but that's about it.
Comments
Like Amazon Prime, the whole enchilada.
edit: For 4 years.
Also nice is Amazon Prime is half-off for students for 4 years.
The success of "HBO Go" completely proves that you are in for a rude awakening, my optimistic friend.
And Disney does in fact plan on keeping their movies to themselves when it comes to streaming. They've already stated that their deal with Netflix is not being renewed, so their content will be pulled. Even now in iTunes, they are the only studio that does not offer 4K versions of their content. So the only place you'll be able to stream their content is to subscribe to their service. Disney is the largest producer of content in the world, this isn't about being able to watch an old "Disney" movie, most of the most popular and successful studios are owned by Disney, including LucasFilms, Pixar, and Marvel Studios.
Anyway, I hope someone at Apple asks themselves, Will viewers really wish to see Apple’s logo in the beginning and end of a film or show? Will they want to be reminded of work when they seek a bit of escapism? Will the inevitable “offensive show” or “dull film” begin to take more bites out of that hallowed Apple logo? An Apple-branded streaming service seems okay. But sure hope Tim Cook finds a different way to brand artist content. And maybe different brand for whole effort, like YouTube within Google.
I can't tell you how much 'new music' in my Apple Music recommendations is Youtube level talent that rhymes smoke with smoke while singing along to their default settings midi controlled casio keyboard.
It feels like Apple is just jumping into all this stuff because they think they have to be in it, with 'new category services' $$$ projections glowing in their eyes.
Yeah, I'm not sure how it would introduce competition, though. The whole point is to have something exclusive to lock people into your service. It is anti-competitive. Competition is when you have similar competing services, but the more dissimilar they become the less competition.
I guess it is going to happen, as it isn't illegal. I'm just not welcoming it. I liked when Netflix was just a service that offered the most possible content from everyone under one roof.
I agree with everything you've said except News. We need more curated news about as much as that 301st channel.
And, then after they get lots of people used to paying the monthly fees, the business geniuses will decide to start adding in some ads, because then you can make even more money. It's just the way of stupid, and has happened over and over again.... until they ruin whatever the platform is enough that people jump to some new platform.
Yep, and then, eventually, people start realizing that the more and more things they look for on Netflix isn't there and they start losing customers... hoping they make up the difference with the draw to their 'original content' and pretty soon you have a new 'network' instead of a universal content service (which is why people went to Netflix in the first place).
Bingo! They are one step up the food-chain too far to play and win this particular game. That said, it is also more destructive the lower you go, so while this is irritating to me (with IMO detrimental outcomes), it should be illegal at the ISP level.
re: net neutrality - are there other places that have it? the USA never really had it implemented, though I suppose the striking down of what got started (as problematic as it was), has emboldened them.
No, I mean the ISPs control the end/bottom layer. You have to go through them to get to Apple, Netflix, etc.