Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Rigid Negotiating Tactics Cost Us 'Skinny Bundles' For Apple TV, Says Report (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: According to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, the reason we don't have actual TV channels on the Apple TV is because the company tried to strong-arm networks -- and failed. Apple's Senior Vice President Eddy Cue is said to have taken the wrong approach. In one meeting, he reportedly told TV executives that "time is on my side." Cue is also accused of bluffing executives by claiming other networks -- specifically Disney and Fox -- were already signed up. The company also refused to show off the Apple TV interface, or "sketch it on the back of a napkin," as one media executive requested. Cue also tried to strike hard bargains, says WSJ. He reportedly asked that Disney put off the royalties Apple would have to pay for several years. Those 'skinny bundles' we heard so much about were what Apple was planning to build its TV experience around, too. In 2015, a bundle consisting of Fox, ESPN and Disney content was conceptualized (and priced at $30), but no agreements were ever signed. In an effort to create more original programming, Apple is scheduled to release its 'Planet of the Apps' TV show about app developers next year.
Luckily pirating doesn't cost anything, and I get to watch whatever I want, and then I get to own it.
The companies can fight all they want, it doesn't bother me. If they want my money they'll give me their content really cheap, and make it really easy to watch. If not, tough for them.
Skinny Bundles are a dream for all cable companies. The programmers consistently have refused because they know of the bargaining power that they posses. So Cue failed; big deal. He refused to compromise by overpaying for ridiculously targeted shows. This is good for the industry. And maybe one day, they'll break.
You call $30/mo skinny? $30 for a lifetime is skinny..
The old media companies are infamous for their inflexibility, so this comes as no surprise. The only way to break them is to actually start taking sizable portions of their market by producing well received content but when you get to that point, you might as well tell them to fuck off because you don't actually need them anymore.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The reality is the TV networks time in history is over, no one believes the corporate propaganda any more, their marketing ability is collapsing and the actual content producers, the people who actually produce the entertainment (the writers and animators) are sick of them (and of actors). So more direct content, from content creator to end user with minimal interference from content library services (not publishers any more, just a lend lease libraries). That is the inevitable trend and time most definitely is on Apple's side. They who produce the most economical, friendly and accessible libraries will win (exclusivity whilst sounding fine in psychopathic corporate board rooms is actually a no, no and will push those companies into second and third rate status), along with the content creators (writers and animators). Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever, do not have hugely wildly bloated egos and once paid for remain paid for and do not lose that investment in a drunken, drugged up splurges involving minors (that corporate main stream media together with public relations firms can not gloss over). Keep in mind those lend lease libraries will also become social media hubs, user to user and content creators to content creator and user to content creators (a lot more content creators will appear, as a result of non-exclusive deals with libraries, more of an investment in the content creator and hence limiting their ability to trade content via other libraries, will stupidly limit returns upon that investment. Why the investment by libraries into content creators, the more the merrier or cough, cough, the cheaper they become, enabling libraries to build up masses of cheap, competitive content and the market is opened up far wider to many amateur content creators, even user to user created evolving content (no fixed story, changes over time, with specific recorded creation points). Current main stream media is just so last millennium (although that era will go done in history as creators of the most bloated and inflated egos imaginable from demanding worship, to unlimited greed, to endless celebrations of their own egos and even publicly choosing political leaders thumbing their noses at the majority, spending way beyond what the anonymous majority could ever afford, laughing at the nobodies campaign efforts).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The WSJ piece was an obvious force fed piece from the TV industry. It's the equivalent of the Taxi industry writing about Uber. No love.
I'm sure the industry would have kowtowed if Mr. Cue had worn an suit rather than a hawaii shirt and we'd all have skinny bundles and ponies.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'd always been under the impression it was the networks that tended to be the "bullies" that were doing the "strong-arming" around the block? I guess life's rough when you're used to being the 400lb gorilla when the 600lb gator enters the scene.
Reminds me of a very dated newspaper cartoon from a long time ago, picture godzilla (labeled "Microsoft") rampaging through a city. He gets surprised by a tap on the shoulder from a much larger godzilla, labelled "AOL". Yeah, that was a long time ago, but you get the idea.
Moral of the story: bullying is OK as long as you're the one DOING the bullying, but quicky becomes NOT cool when you're the one GETTING bullied. I find it very hard to be sympathetic to a bully who just got the tables turned on them. Cry me a river.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.