robbyx

bb-15 said:

hmurchison said:

This household is not giving up Netflix.    My pain-point isn't managing a few apps.  If Apple can deliver some winners then they have a chance but they need to chill on the "we da best!" marketing schtick or you're going to find Netflix cleaning your clock.  

You're selling what everyone else is selling.   There's very little innovation in aggregating content.   Apple original content is going to have to be good. ....really good.

I subscribe to Netflix. Apple’s advantage here is that they have a lot more money than Netflix to give to content providers.
Will Apple’s streaming service be successful? I don’t know the future. But it’s clear because of finances that Netflix is vulnerable right now.  

What are you talking about?  How is Netflix vulnerable?  They are profitable and are going to spend $15B on content in 2019.  Apple's $1B in original content is a drop in the bucket.  Apple has a few dozen, at best, original shows in development.  Netflix has nearly 300.  Netflix is so far out ahead of Apple.  That doesn't mean that Apple can't deliver a compelling service, but get real.  The Netflix execs enjoyed some serious schadenfreude as they watched that atrocious TV segment today.  They're not worried.

Of all the announcements today, this is perhaps the most interesting.  At first I rolled my eyes but, as the presentation continued, it became clear that Apple has genuinely added value to the credit card experience.  That said, I get 3.6% back on every purchase with no limits or category restrictions, so Apple's rewards aren't as good as what I already have.  I love the simplified statement and clear merchant identification, though.  I wonder how long it will be until we see a full-blown financial management app baked into iOS and macOS.

sagan_student said:

robbyx said:

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

"While new Video and/or News products might help to increase iPhone stickiness they seem unlikely to make much of an impact on Apple's bottom line," Rod Hall wrote in a new memo to investors, seen by AppleInsider. Even if the video service gains 20 million subscribers by the end of 2020, and charges them $15 per month, that would only boost consensus earnings forecasts by 1 percent, he estimated. If the service costs $10 per month, that would only raise earnings 0.4 percent.

So, charging 1/3 less would drop the earnings increase by over 50%? Wouldn't a less expensive offering attract more people?

Who knows what model Goldman used to arrive at these figures, but I think Apple is going to have a hard time attracting a mass audience unless they do something truly revolutionary.  Another "me too" video service with a few original shows simply isn't going to cut it.  The die-hard Apple fans will subscribe en-masse, of course, claiming it's the best video service and original programming ever, but convincing the other 99% of Apple customers to jump on board will be more challenging.

A few good original shows will not be reason enough for most people to subscribe.  I'm a big Star Trek fan (as I imagine many of us here are), but I'm not paying $10/month for CBS to watch that one show.  Admittedly, I find Discovery to be rather weak, but even if it was amazing, I still don't think I'd pay $10/month for it.  Instead, I'm going to wait for the season to end, subscribe for a month, watch the whole season, and cancel.  Netflix, on the other hand, I gladly pay for each month because there's enough content that interests me.

AppleInsider said:

Other analysts have worried that Apple won't be able to compete with video rivals like Netflix or Disney in terms of quantity or quality, and that it may be years behind without any special reason to subscribe beyond particular shows. 

I only subscribe to Netflix to watch "particular shows". It started with House of Cards but then I found a few more that I like.  What's to say the situation will be any different with Apple? Granted, if they're really launching with 11 shows they may have a long way to go, considering Netflix has a lot of original content that I have no interest in whatsoever and only a few that I like. It's like Netflix is just throwing whatever they can against the wall to see what sticks. So far, according to the rumors, that isn't Apple's current approach.

Netflix's approach is actually the better approach, though.  What sticks for one group of people doesn't stick for another.  What one person finds terrible, another loves.  You have to offer a wide variety of content to attract a wide viewership.  Netflix understands this and has the subscriber numbers to prove it.  No one else comes close.  Apple's video service with succeed or fail based on the service itself, not the original programming.  The original programming will no doubt sweeten the deal, but the service itself has to improve upon the television experience enough to make customers switch or add yet another monthly charge to the credit card.  I think this is going to be a challenge for Apple.

The more I have sat on Apple’s strategy the more I am feeling like I’m understanding it. Your point about subscribing for a month to binge watch Discovery is exactly why Apple pushed their subscription model to the content providers. Had that gone through like Apple had hoped, I would only have one subscription to manage not 2 or more.

While having only one subscription to manage is a nice convenience, would it have been cheaper?  Probably not.  The reality is, those of us (and I include myself here) who advocated for a la carte pricing completely got it wrong.  As much as I hated paying for shows and channels I didn't watch, the bundled cable model is still the simplest, most convenient, and cheapest if you want access to a wide variety of content.

Apple recognizes that there is only so much time in a day that people can be consuming video. Yes there are the heavy users but for people like me, I may only watch 1-2 hours on a typical day, there isn’t enough time in the day to make 80-100 dollars a month for full cable or for 6 streaming services worth while. It IS a waste of money for many people. However, the content providers did not want to relinquish control over how and when their content can be viewed and so here we are.

A la carte pricing works great if you only want to subscribe to one or two services.  Otherwise you're better off with cable.  I'm not sure it's really about content providers not wanting to relinquish control either.  Not every show is going to make money.  The bundled cable model, in essence, has the more successful shows (and channels) subsidizing the less successful ones.  I don't think anyone has figured out how to make this work.  That's why we're seeing services like DirecTV Now and PlayStation Vue and Hulu with live TV.  They've essentially moved the cable bundle to the Internet.  They still nickel and dime for services like DVR.  There are still commercials.  You're still stuck with channels you don't want to watch but have to pay for anyway.

Netflix is the only one who is truly thinking differently about content.  Content is why they exist.  They aren't a hardware company or online shopping behemoth looking for an additional revenue stream.  Netflix is the first global television provider and they've managed to build this massive worldwide service completely free of advertising.  I'm looking forward to Apple's announcement, but I don't have high hopes.  I'd love for them to deliver a radical new approach to content delivery, but my gut tells me they'll be delivering something far more mundane.

Apple, I believe, is not trying to become Netflix. That is something that may happen organically after many years (kinda like how some artists refused to put their music on iTunes initially, now most have finally accepted that Apple’s model does provide benefit in this new world). I can see the same thing happening with Apple’s subscription; not much older content when it launches... but give it enough time and things could start changing. What I think Apple is trying to do is become a high end YouTube. With the ability for good quality content to be produced entirely on consumer level products, individuals wanting to reach a larger audience, could put their stuff on Apple TV. And just like that the individual becomes their own content manager and does not have to worry about distribution. This is something I think the content providers are not used to, they create and distribute content and therefore collect all the money. They are not used to paying for distribution. In short, this is something that Apple is in for the long haul. People are just becoming open to what consumption of content could be outside of what television has been for all these years. They’ve got time to steer people’s understanding to be in line with what they see the solution to be.

I also don't believe they are trying to become Netflix.  They are trying to grow their Services category.  The two product category bright spots for Apple are Services and Other.  The rest, iPhone, Mac, iPad, are mature markets.  They will fluctuate a bit, but none of them will experience significant growth at this point.  The Other category is growing thanks to the Watch.  Most of Apple's Services revenue is AppleCare, which is tied to hardware sales.  Padding the Services category with video and paid news offerings makes sense, especially if hardware sales aren't as strong.  These services don't have to be wildly successful to add a bit to the bottom line and further lock users into the ecosystem.

**I really have no clue what I’m saying here... just thinking aloud.   

I can't say that I follow re: a "high end YouTube", but I think you're right that this is all a long game.  The advantage Apple has over everyone else is that hardware is their bread and butter.  If Netflix doesn't get it right, they are out of business.  If Apple doesn't get it right, it would be embarrassing given the public's perception of them as an unstoppable "disruptor", but they'd be just fine and on to the next thing.

Lots of interesting arguments being made.  Now that Apple is both providing the platform and competing directly with third party apps and services on the platform, the waters are being muddied.  I suspect that this is just a taste of what's to come in the future concerning Apple and its "monopoly".

I think the comparisons to Microsoft in the 90s are somewhat valid.  Microsoft provided the platform (Windows) and leveraged that position to favor Internet Explorer.  After buying a PC that came preloaded with Internet Explorer, that customer could still download Netscape, but how many did?  Clearly not enough to keep Netscape afloat.  The situation isn't much different with iOS and Apple Music.  Now that a music service comes bundled with iOS and signing up is one tap away, there's less incentive for the user to seek out another service.

Apple is clearly using its platform monopoly to favor Apple Music, which is pretty much exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer.  Who makes the underlying hardware is irrelevant if we're looking at things in terms of the platform/OS.  Sure, a software developer can say, "No Apple for me, I'm Android only!" but that's like saying "No Windows for me, I'm Mac only!" back in the 90s.  A few brave souls managed to make it work, but if you wanted access to a broad customer base who spent money on third party software, you needed to be on the Windows platform.  It's the same thing with mobile today.  If you want to make money as a developer, you need to be on iOS.

When it comes to Apple's percentage of the sale, I don't think you can compare the App Store to retail or Amazon.  The fact is, if you don't like Amazon's terms, you can go make a deal with Target or Walmart to sell your product.  You can also start your own online store and not pay anyone a cut.  If you're developing for the Mac, Windows, Android, and pretty much every other OS, this holds true.  However, if you're an iOS developer, you have no choice.  You must agree to every one of Apple's terms or you're completely shut out of the platform.  People defending Apple here should think long and hard about what kind of future they want.  I appreciate the security aspects of the App Store model, but I also don't believe that it's in the best interest of the consumer, or society in general, for one company to have unregulated control over a platform.  We've never seen anything like this before.  Microsoft never had the kind of control over what happens on Windows PCs that Apple has over iOS devices.

Just because Apple built the platform, that doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever they want.  As someone pointed out, it's a bit like the railroads back in the day.  They thought (and I'm sure they had their defenders back then too) that since they built it, they should be able to own and control everything.  I'm sure people said "well, if you don't like it, just build your own railroad", just as some suggest today that Spotify should build its own OS and hardware.  This specious argument completely ignores reality.  There comes a point where it's essentially impossible to compete against something that has become completely entrenched.  No one managed to displace Windows despite the fact that several better (from a technical standpoint anyway) solutions came along.

Whatever happens from here, I think it's safe to say that Apple will face increased scrutiny, pressure, and legal challenges over their "walled garden".

robbyx said:
... It's pretty hard to argue that individuals and businesses will do the right thing when history provides an endless string of examples to the contrary.

Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. ...

But, isn't what the 'right thing' is what is up for debate in the first place?

Doesn't that go without saying? Aren't we all just expressing our opinions here?

I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more liberal think conservatives sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL

I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more conservative think liberals sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL. Well, not really LOL. More like, GROAN.

Of course, unregulated businesses won't often do the right thing, because... human nature. That's economics 101, which is so frustrating when I see conservative push for 'free market' as in unregulated. But, it's also equally frustrating, when I see liberals push for more socialistic solutions that put the power into the hands of some government officials... as if that hasn't been tried before.

Yeah, and it works quite well in all the "socialist" countries of Europe that consistently rank higher than the US in quality of life, happiness, health, etc. What I find frustrating is the endless parroting of the same bad old ideas from the "conservative" side, ideas that have never worked, that are, in essence, just selfishness wrapped in a hybrid religious/political coating so that the pill goes down a little easier.  And then, the kicker is, conservatives claim to be Christian, which is the biggest laugh of all because Jesus was a hardcore socialist.

But, to be honest, I don't even know what "conservative" means anymore. I know there are still some "real" fiscal conservatives out there, somewhere, I think...but the mainstream conservative movement has, for the most part, been taken over by the Christian Taliban element. These snowflakes, the most precious and delicate snowflakes among us, can't stand the idea that people might NOT want to live as they do and cast any effort to balance the scales as an attack on them and their faith. They are totally schizophrenic in their beliefs as they weirdly (and somehow successfully) reconcile their faith with their selfish political ideology.  They never cease to amaze as they cherrypick passages from their good book to give them cover for everything they do while ignoring all those pesky and inconvenient passages that might call their actions into question.  That's what comes to mind when I hear the word "conservative" these days.

While there are certainly just some hateful bigots (re: LGBT issues), or people who just want to pollute, etc. (re: climate change)... the core of the debates (by actual thinking people on both sides) are much, much deeper than that. For example, most of the so-called 'climate deniers' aren't denying some warming, some part of which is human-caused (ie: we're right in there with that 97% made up figure). The debate is over the proposed solutions, who will be harmed in and to what extent with each solution, and who is on the $$$ take in pushing certain solutions.

You're deluding yourself. Mainstream climate change deniers don't acknowledge human involvement. They scoff at the idea that burning a little oil could change the environment. They aren't proposing any solutions other than drill baby drill. And we all know who is in on the take (and has been for decades): the oil companies. And we all know who supports them blindly and unquestioningly: conservatives.  Conservatives claim to want energy independence, but do everything they can to limit renewables.  We were once the leader in renewable energy technology.  Now China and Germany pretty much own it.  

Or, with LGBT stuff, the debate is over personal rights vs societal impact, and who gets to control 'public education' and what kinds of bullying are going on to accomplish those ends.

When we simplify this stuff down to black & white; right and wrong side of history; 'doing what is right' kind of slogans, then yeah, it's pretty easy to straw-man a particular 'side.'

Bullying? Yeah, gay people know all about it. That last paragraph is such "I want to sound tolerant but I'm really not" homophobe crap. Personal rights versus societal impact? Give me a break. Conservatives (aka Christian Taliban) want everyone to accept that a magical wizard lives in the sky and created all of this, that this Santa Claus for Grownups is keeping a list of who's been naughty and nice, and will one day judge us all. We're in the 21st century, but the Christian Taliban wants to keep the Bronze Age going strong! And we're all supposedly to just fall in line and take it as fact. And any attempt to push back is bullying. Precious snowflakes indeed.