Apple's Plan For Its New TV Service: Sell Other People's TV Services (recode.net) 95
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: After years of circling the TV business, Apple is finally ready to make its big splash: On Monday it will unveil its new video strategy, along with some of the new big-budget TV shows it is funding itself. One thing Apple won't do is unveil a serious competitor to Netflix, Hulu, Disney, or any other entertainment giant trying to sell streaming video subscriptions to consumers. Instead, Apple's main focus -- at least for now -- will be helping other people sell streaming video subscriptions and taking a cut of the transaction. Apple may also sell its own shows, at least as part of a bundle of other services. But for now, Apple's original shows and movies should be considered very expensive giveaways, not the core product.
All of this might very well work. Apple has an installed base of 1.4 billion users, and some of them will buy the things Apple promotes: Look at the success of Apple Music, which launched seven years after Spotify but quickly amassed 50 million subscribers due to a free trial period and prominent real estate on Apple's devices. Another reason this could work: Amazon has already been very successful with its own version of the same idea. Facebook is also bullish on selling TV subscriptions and is pushing would-be partners to sign up so it can launch later this spring or summer, according to industry sources. Similarly, Comcast (which is a minority investor in Vox Media, which owns this site) is rolling out Flex, a $5-a-month service that gives you a bunch of free content (some of which you can also get other places) and the ability to easily buy HBO, Showtime, etc. Instead of offering exclusive content, Comcast is offering subscribers a Roku-like streaming box. According to people who've talked to Apple about its plans, Apple's new TV service will consist of selling TV subscription apps surrounded by millions of other apps in its main app store. "Apple plans on making a new storefront that's much more prominent for those who use Apple TV boxes and other Apple hardware," reports Recode. "It will also be able to offer its own bundles -- for instance, it could offer a package of HBO, Showtime, and Starz at a price that's lower than you'd pay for each pay TV service on its own."
All of this might very well work. Apple has an installed base of 1.4 billion users, and some of them will buy the things Apple promotes: Look at the success of Apple Music, which launched seven years after Spotify but quickly amassed 50 million subscribers due to a free trial period and prominent real estate on Apple's devices. Another reason this could work: Amazon has already been very successful with its own version of the same idea. Facebook is also bullish on selling TV subscriptions and is pushing would-be partners to sign up so it can launch later this spring or summer, according to industry sources. Similarly, Comcast (which is a minority investor in Vox Media, which owns this site) is rolling out Flex, a $5-a-month service that gives you a bunch of free content (some of which you can also get other places) and the ability to easily buy HBO, Showtime, etc. Instead of offering exclusive content, Comcast is offering subscribers a Roku-like streaming box. According to people who've talked to Apple about its plans, Apple's new TV service will consist of selling TV subscription apps surrounded by millions of other apps in its main app store. "Apple plans on making a new storefront that's much more prominent for those who use Apple TV boxes and other Apple hardware," reports Recode. "It will also be able to offer its own bundles -- for instance, it could offer a package of HBO, Showtime, and Starz at a price that's lower than you'd pay for each pay TV service on its own."
Re: streaming is NOT the same as television... (Score:4, Interesting)
Plenty of us donâ(TM)t give two shits about recording, archiving or collecting anything. We just want to watch something. If it is convenient to watch, we will watch. If it is too inconvenient, oh well! It is not the end of the world. We will find something else to do.
Personal example. We do not have cable TV. We donâ(TM)t regularly subscribe to any viewing alternatives either. We do have Amazon Prime, which has video as a bonus, but it is not why we have Prime and we would have Prime even if it didnâ(TM)t have video. If we want to watch something that is not free on Prime, we will rent it from whomever.
However, we did pay $15 for a month of HBO Go. We watched what we wanted to watch and cancelled the subscription. That was in November. We will get it again for another month in April.
Number of things I have recorded since the VCR went out of style: 0
Number of things I wanted to record: 0
Just donâ(TM)t care. I canâ(TM)t be the only one.
Re: streaming is NOT the same as television... (Score:1)
Haha you got HBO just for Game of Thrones. Nice.
Re: streaming is NOT the same as television... (Score:2)
Yep. Watched 7 seasons for $15. That is a pretty good value (:
Re: streaming is NOT the same as television... (Score:1)
I got HBO just for the lack of commercials. When I started ditching cable for Netflix I began to realize just how much time I was losing to watching commercials. I began to develop a huge dislike for them and now I actively avoid anything that has them in them.
Last thing I watched was a show just before the Super Bowl. The hour long show was a full 30 minutes commercials and the Super Bowl had commercials every five minutes, in addition to the halftime stuff. It is absolutely insane how horrible it has gott
Re: (Score:2)
I don't generally watch much. Most of it is crap, and I've got other shit I'd rather do anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
You absolutely do have the right to archive it, you don't have the right to distribute said archive. Copyright only protects the right to distribute, not the right to save copies. This has been settled law for decades.
You cannot separate the ability to archive from the ability to time-shift. Copying shows from streams or over the air is no different from time shifting provided you're not distributing the copies.
So they are going Me Too to Comcast ? (Score:1)
Well this should be interesting.
Innovate harder I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't have to convince everybody that they invented cable to cash in; they only have to convince a few percent.
Give them another 10 or 15 years, they'll probably invent radio too.
Now I can finally get rid of my cable subscription (Score:2)
Bye Bye cord.... Oh Wait.
Ship has not sailed (Score:2)
They had an opportunity when 20th Century Fox was for sale, but that ship has sailed.
Disney market cap as of March 21, 2019 is $161.99B. As of Jan 29, 2019, Apple had $245 billion cash on hand (Q1 earnings report).
So, uh, at its current price, Apple could buy all of Disney's shares, own the company outright, and STILL have $83B in cash lying around.
That ship has hardly sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Having played part in a couple of them now, it's not just a matter of having the money. People have to want to sell to you.
Giving them their flat market share value isn't enticing when the company is doing good.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, think of all the services out there - it literally is a A La Carte menu of channels. Just you now have to manage a dozen subscriptions and services and logins and passwords and incompatibilities.
Perhaps you're subscribed to Hulu and Disney and YouTube TV. You want CBS and you need to subscribe to CBS' online service. The sheer number of services makes it hard to navigate.and use.
Apple can certainly aggregate all this into a simple interface to make it easier to subscribe, view and unsubcribe.
Re:So they are going Me Too to Comcast ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can I literally pick only the stations/streams that I want to pay for, and not a bundle that includes 30 things I don't give a mosquitos fart about?
Last question: Will they refuse to put ads in to raise the revenue stream?
If all 3 are a yes, I'm interested in at least seeing what the pricing is.
Re: (Score:1)
Question four is whether they will sell their 'service' to people who do not have any Apple hardware. If not, the hell with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Question four is whether they will sell their 'service' to people who do not have any Apple hardware. If not, the hell with them.
Actually, I think it is more of a case that if you don't have any Apple hardware, then the hell with YOU. (:
Re: (Score:1)
Apple makes very little hardware worth paying the premium they charge for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish there was a simple way to pay a reasonable price for what I want. Is that too much to ask?
Like I can subscribe to Netflix for a month for 8 bucks and watch a season or two, maybe three. So let's say 30 hours of TV, or 30 cents/episode. And that's the upper limit, you actually get two steams for that and some people watch a lot more than 30 hours worth.
Can I just pay 30 cents/episode to watch Game of Thrones, or The Man In The High Castle, or any other show?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, cheap access to media will never happen due to the greed of licensing. The lawyers of content producers have everyone over a barrel with licensing "deals" and there is very little anyone can do about it. i.e. If you want our _one_ show you have to license the rest of our crap that isn't as popular.
Everyone thinks A La Carte is the solution but that just fractures the market with inconvenience and everyone nickeling and diming the customer.
Apple would need to buy a few studios -- in order to c
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish there was a simple way to pay a reasonable price for what I want. Is that too much to ask?
Like I can subscribe to Netflix for a month for 8 bucks and watch a season or two, maybe three. So let's say 30 hours of TV, or 30 cents/episode.
That's just not reasonable. You want to spent 30 cents/hour for entertainment? How fucking cheap can you be? I've seen a lot of cheap motherfuckers in my time, but damned dude, you take the cake.
Personally, I'd easily pay $1/episode for something like GoT, TMITHC, The Expanse, etc. if I had to, and that is still WAY cheaper than any other kind of paid entertainment options I am likely to have on a regular basis. I'd probably pay $2/episode for any of those 3 shows.
30 cents/hr? You're fucking high.
Re: (Score:2)
But Netflix/is/ 30 cents an hour. It's less if you watch more. I'm being generous.
They can afford to make high budget stuff on that.
Saying that I can't even buy it for a buck either.
Most already know about streaming TV... (Score:1)
I'm not convinced this will help Apple's revenue stream significantly - I'd expect the majority of people who have Apple devices already know about Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Youtube and iTunes; it does surprise me that some users sign up already through apps on their devices rather than through the websites, essentially allowing Apple via their App Store TOS to steal from the actual provider.
If their aim is to bring attention to and promote lesser streaming services (alongside their own first party conte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Most already know about streaming TV... (Score:3)
How do you figure? You can get any of those other services without going through Apple and Apple has no way to prevent you from doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight: you're anticipating or fearing, that Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu will decide to "fire" over half of their paying customers, telling them that unless you switch to an iOS device, we don't want your fucking money anymore?
I'd laugh at you if Hollywood didn't already have such a great track record of telling people they'd prefer to not have customers. Ok, so maybe Hulu will decide they don't want to be a for-profit company with customers anymore.
But Netflix? I really don't think
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...do you realize these services are available on multiple devices - all of which can be hooked up to your TV simultaneously, and that you can choose which one to watch at any given time?
Re: (Score:2)
A person can go buy a cheap Android device and their life is just as easy. Where's the monopoly problem?
Move to the head of the class.
People bitch about Apple having shitty, high-priced, closed-loop products on one hand, and somehow having a monopoly on the other hand. It is total bullshit.
If you don't like how Apple does business, you can easily go get a cheaper product that is arguably better, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. It is always an option you have, any time you want to exercise it.
The PROBLEM is that many of the people doing the bitching WANT Apple's stuff, for whatever reasons they may
Re: (Score:2)
...because Apple has so many customers.
People buy iPhones and iShinies as status symbols, they don't pick television services as status symbols.
This is why Apple has been struggling to make a go of it with their TV offering: they don't sell technology, and they don't sell services, they sell image.
rent-seeking (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has a captive audience: It gives them the apex of rent-seeking behaviour.
Bah humbug .... (Score:3)
Apple has a captive audience: It gives them the apex of rent-seeking behaviour.
Not with iTunes it doesn't, it runs on Windows too and releasing a iTunes for Android/Linux would not be a bad idea either. That being said, providing a single access point with a single subscription for multiple TV services seems like a pretty convenient service to me. I for one am not going to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Diseney, HBO, YouTube, ... the list goes on, and on, and on ... all individually, I'm going to subscribe to a subset at best. However, if somebody offered me a service that fuses all of t
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a captive audience: It gives them the apex of rent-seeking behaviour.
Not with iTunes it doesn't, it runs on Windows too and releasing a iTunes for Android/Linux would not be a bad idea either.
iTunes is a dumpster fire. Even my mac-loving friends who won't contemplate switching to another platform say bad things about it on the regular. Who's going to want to run that garbage anyway, just to get easier access to streaming services they can get without it? Answer, no fucking body.
This will work (Score:1)
Get to curate any political content found to be sinful.
Get money for every show and movie allowed to use their closed garden.
apple doing what it does best (Score:1)
taking something everyone else is already doing / done, and copying and putting a 50% tax on it.
Donâ(TM)t need to first, just need to be best (Score:1)
Appleâ(TM)s biggest hits havenâ(TM)t been when theyâ(TM)ve been first to the market but when theyâ(TM)ve been âoebestâ. MP3 players, smart phones and tablet computers; all existed before Apple made billions from them. All existed before Apple spotted the opportunity to create a tightly integrated solution that looked good and worked well for _most_ people. I donâ(TM)t know if they can pull off the same trick with streaming, but the world plus dog piling into it, fractured
Gatekeepers (Score:2)
Aggregated Guide (Score:3)
If they can produce a working and interactive aggregated guide for the "live streaming" services then they will have a winner. Amazon Fire TV does this to an extent with the "channel" or services you can buy through your Prime Video account, including any other the air channels you're streaming via a Recast.
Most "streamers" need to subscribe to more than one service to get the channels they want to watch. Having one guide that covers whatever services you add is desired by a lot of people.
Read between the lines (Score:1)
What TFA is really saying:
The market is getting really fractured again, and pirating what you want to see is becoming more appealing by the hour
Guess it's time to start torrenting once more. I already have to do that with whatever shows Netflix refuses to update (The Good Place, Colony, etc), and whatever shows Netflix won't/can't air (American Dad, Game of Thrones, etc). Disney leaving Netflix just meant I had to torrent those if I wanted them, and Apple making exclusive shows just means I will torrent those as well if they seem interesting.
Cutting the streaming-pie into smaller pieces is bad for the industry, and it won'
Apple is the consummate middle man (Score:2)
Apple sells phones & computers they don't make. Why not sell content they don't make. This is a natural fit for them.
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument, all of the computer companies, and most of the phone companies do not make their products either. Almost all of them are assembled by contract companies, such as Foxcon or Pegatron. And then you can argue that they don't make things either because they are just assembling those items from components provided by an army of other companies.
All of that winds up with a useless argument. The reality is that Apple engineers the product, and is hyper-involved in directing the assembly and testing
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Someone got their Apple fanboi rage nerve tweaked there.
Not all companies are "computer companies". (And what is YOUR definition of a computer company? A company that produces microprocessors, software, boards, embedded systems, workstations, software, cloud services, IT support, Network security....?)
Not all companies outsource their products.
Not all companies offer a product as they offer services. (Some may even be "computer companies".)
Not all companies that offer services do not outsource the
Re: (Score:1)
Android (Score:2)
Pay me for a speedometer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So this is like Jeep selling the crazy shifter that no one understood and killed a version of Checkov that I loved, and offering a sensible shifter as a $1000 option.
Not just that, but Chrysler corp. had a superior option in the 1960s. I had a 1960 Dodge Dart that had push-button automatic. When you pushed the button for one gear, the previously-selected one would pop out, so you knew for sure what gear you had selected. They actually went backwards for the sake of being different, and as you point out, it killed someone.
Obvious (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you neglected to add is that on an AppleTV, you may have 10 different subscriptions (for example), but you can manage them in one place, rather than individually in 10 different apps. That alone is a very nice feature (which other boxes may have for all I know).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Next time, why dont you ask for clarification instead of being an insulting ass.
Cable TV of the Future? (Score:1)
Isn't this the Cable TV strategy?
Apple seems to be looking at replacing Comcast, not Netflix.
With all the "Cable" cutting, the missing piece would seem to be an online version of Cable TV.
The question is, why would we be running into Apples ever loving arms for TV Bundles?!
I think most of Apples user base either never knew Cable TV or have forgotten about it.
$100/Mth for 8 streaming services? Add in few pic and choose TV station streams for $1.99? Or TV Stations Bundles for $10?!!
This could indeed be a kil