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..
if Cue wore a red jump suit, captain pips, refereed to network CEOs as "mon capitaine" and their respective board members as a "dangerous, savage child board".
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.
We have a few AppleTV devices. One of them is used solely as a digital photo frame using Flickr (it's a cheap way to build a DPF). The primary AppleTV (plugged into the main TV) is used nearly solely for NetFlix (with some RedbullTV too).
All of the things you mentioned you can play on an AppleTV. Most have AppleTV apps, the few that do not (like Amazon Prime) I can if I wish Airplay from phone to the TV...
It's been especially nice for some things like HBO Go and Starz, because there is a good AppleTV app I could fire up to watch content - but the absolute best aspect by far is that I can sign up for service on those apps through Apple as subscriptions, which means I can *easily* cancel them and just buy in month intervals... HBO bored me by the time Game Of Thrones was over, so I just cut off the subscription until something compelling leads my to subscribe again...
In that way Apple actually has provided the "thin bundles" they wanted, only even thinner - because most channels have individual AppleTV apps now or are building them, so I can truly pay just for content I find interesting, for the period of time that suits me (in monthly increments). I could get an MLB app too if I cared about baseball and get every game instead of the cable bundles which come with restrictions or don't offer all games...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If Apple had won, then we'd be able to order a-la-carte TV on cable and everything else.
Apple walked away because of the rules Disney and other have. You can't buy Espn without buying all the other ESPNs, and Disney Kids. They know that if you can pick just one or two out of the lineup, it'll weaken the "monopoly" of Disney. So they come as a group, and any trimming of a few to save costs is not allowed.
Learn to love Alaska
And their fire line is far more locked down than Apple could ever dream of, with a small pool of apps.
Locked down what? You can sideload any app you want to any fire device you want. And what's more, you don't even need to plug in a USB cable to do it; They have ES File Explorer in their store. Once you have that installed, you can install anything you want, and uninstall ES if you like afterwards. The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you think Apple let the customers benefit when they negotiate a lower cost deal you've clearly misunderstood the situation. You can bet that watching a cable show over Apple TV would have been more expensve than watching it straight from the cable co. Because of the "high quality ecosystem", of course.
lucm, indeed.
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.
I've got a Synology box running Plex server and fire TVs running the Plex client on every TV in the house.
My wife and kids have adapted to watching whatever they want, whenever they want - on any device they please.
The networks, cable companies, and set-top box providers are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. By the time my kids become teenagers the boat will already have sunk.
Good riddance to all of the middlemen. The internet should link content creators directly to the consumers.
SlingTV has the right idea of offering a bundle that has many popular channels, without two specific (and expensive) channels that are of negligible interest to a significant chunk of their subscribers: ESPN and Disney.
Companies like Comcast and AT&T could gain, or at least retain, plenty of subscribers while maintaining revenues, just by following SlingTV's lead and allowing people who subscribe to one of their economy packages to substitute channels like Showtime and HBO for expensive channels like ESPN, regional sports networks, and Disney (plus kids' channels, with the specific exception of Cartoon Network's Adult Swim). Or allowing customers to subscribe WITHOUT local OTA channels for a discount equal to slightly less than they'd otherwise have to pay those channels in carriage fees.
Right off the top, without requiring customers to give up a single channel, DirecTV could offer a relatively painless $8/month discount for service without local channels. Or even a $5/month discount, if they gave us back a feature that was almost universal among satellite TV boxes circa 2010 -- the ability to connect the dish to one input, the antenna to another input, and have the box seamlessly insert the OTA channels into the lineup. Yeah, I know there are people who "can't" have an outdoor antenna... but the fact is, 99% of the people who "can't" have just been conditioned by 40 years of HOA propaganda and social norms. By law and FCC regulations, a HOA can't outright prohibit reasonable OTA TV antennas unless they offer a free alternative of equal value (which is why lots of HOAs DO offer "free" basic cable, and pay for it out of the association fees... it's their one legal loophole). I live in Miami about 10 miles away from our local antenna farm near Hallandale, and enjoy nearly perfect reception of OTA channels with an outdoor "bowtie" type antenna that's less than 2 feet by 2 feet, & almost unnoticeable unless you're actively looking for it, together with an inline amplifier (mostly, to compensate for 50 feet of cable loss and splitters).
If SlingTV had a virtual tuner available for Windows Media Center (so I could use my HTPC as a DVR for SlingTV channels), it would be damn near perfect. As it is, the lack of DVR support is the only reason I'd even contemplate Comcast (with a HDHomeRun Prime HDHR3-CC and cablecard) or DirecTV (their $50/month all-inclusive package for Uverse customers is tempting, though I suspect the REAL cost is probably closer to $70 or $80 after taxes and fine-print fees)..