I really don't like that all these subscription services are doing the 'original content' (exclusive content) thing. I suppose it was inevitable, but it isn't great for the consumer. Now you have to buy 3 'generic' content services to get what you used to with just a Netflix subscription, (i.e.: when Netflix just offered other people's content), as I'm sure it leads to more content being pulled or more difficult deals to get it on the particular service if you only use one.
Then once you add that on to the crazy Internet access pricing, and you're paying more than people used to pay for full-out cable. So much for the cord-cutting. (Thankfully I just don't watch much TV anymore... so more a comment on the state of things than how it impacts me.)
But, if Apple doesn't just include this in the current Apple 'Music' I think it isn't going to go over well. People aren't going to subscribe to Music, Video, and News as separate services. News is useless, and they will have to do a heck of a lot better on Video.
This is why I think Apple should be looking at a different model. Concede people have a base service like Netflix, yet people will sign up to another for a month or 2 then drop it once they have watched what they want of the other services original content.
I'd like some one to say lets short cut that and let me rent a whole franchise by the month not just rent of buy episodes. If there are 7 seasons then I might need to rent for a few months to catch up.
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...
...
But making more money on the pipes, still doesn't give you a better relationship with the end user.
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.
But with effective monopolies produced by their cartels, they don't seem to much care what the user thinks. Having a good relationship typically benefits a business when the user has the option of going elsewhere. In cable and cellular both, the user's option has been to replace bad with bad - and that didn't happen by accident.
foggyhill said: 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.
Yes, I get that... but what difference does it make? When you have a toothache, you have to go to the dentist, and if there is only one in town, you go there. Apple can make all the content they want and build a great relationship, but it still flows to their customers via those telcos/ISPs
GeorgeBMac said: But with effective monopolies produced by their cartels, they don't seem to much care what the user thinks. Having a good relationship typically benefits a business when the user has the option of going elsewhere. In cable and cellular both, the user's option has been to replace bad with bad - and that didn't happen by accident.
Exactly. Unless Apple is planning on launching the ISP division, I'm not sure how Apple having a better relationship with their customer impacts the ISP-content-producer collusion problem.
Maybe the idea is that people will be more loyal to Apple's content than Comcast's? I suppose, but if Comcast implements policies to favor their content and damage Apple's, it's simply a situation the Comcast customer is stuck with.
Comments
But with effective monopolies produced by their cartels, they don't seem to much care what the user thinks. Having a good relationship typically benefits a business when the user has the option of going elsewhere. In cable and cellular both, the user's option has been to replace bad with bad - and that didn't happen by accident.
Apple can make all the content they want and build a great relationship, but it still flows to their customers via those telcos/ISPs
Exactly. Unless Apple is planning on launching the ISP division, I'm not sure how Apple having a better relationship with their customer impacts the ISP-content-producer collusion problem.
Maybe the idea is that people will be more loyal to Apple's content than Comcast's? I suppose, but if Comcast implements policies to favor their content and damage Apple's, it's simply a situation the Comcast customer is stuck with.