Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Plan For Its New TV Service: Sell Other People's TV Services (recode.net)
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."
Well this should be interesting.
Innovate harder I guess.
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.
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 content) then they are only doing the disservice of disjointing our collective viewing experience even further while marginally enhancing their services bottom line.
I get that they're so bankrupt for ideas (thinner and fewer ports, thanks Jony Ive!) they need every penny they can get so it's a vital grab for them... but I predict this will be as successful as their Beats purchase.
Bye Bye cord.... Oh Wait.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Haha you got HBO just for Game of Thrones. Nice.
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.
Apple has a captive audience: It gives them the apex of rent-seeking behaviour.
Yep. Watched 7 seasons for $15. That is a pretty good value (:
None of the political risk of making their own shows that might not sell. No politics, actors, movie scripts, reviews.
Get to curate any political content found to be sinful.
Get money for every show and movie allowed to use their closed garden.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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 gotten.
And the bad thing is, is that it wasn't always like that. My grandparents and great grandparents watched TV with only two or three commercials in it. Somewhere in my parents generation that changed and everybody became okay with a ton more commercials being crammed into programming. The people who think that is okay are welcome to keep it, I have better things to do than waste time watching that crap.
...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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
taking something everyone else is already doing / done, and copying and putting a 50% tax on it.
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 nature of the streaming market is reminiscent to me of the MP3 market prior to the iPodâ(TM)s arrival, so maybe ...
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 them and allows me to watch bits and pieces from any service on demand I'd be willing to pay a subscription for that is considerably higher than I'd be willing to pay Netflix, Hulu, Diseney, HBO, YouTube, ... individually. I'd even be interested in 'packages' If I could pick my package together in something resembling à la carte fashion and could stream already premiered TV show episodes from those channels on demand. Since they are not competing with these guys but offering them an opportunity to earn extra money by giving them easier access to Apple's install base this could actually work pretty well.
Their business model is to build a walled garden and be the gatekeepers, only allowing services from outside to interact with the cattle if they pay a hefty fee. This is worst than taxes from the state because, for better or worse, taxes will came back as benefits like roads, conflict resolution (justice), education and health.
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.
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't make me pay for additional slices; it will just make me less likely to pay for what I want.
Apple sells phones & computers they don't make. Why not sell content they don't make. This is a natural fit for them.
More ways for people who think Airplay is "DA BOMB" to pay the Apple tax so they can keep using their Apple proprietary protocols that they are addicted to. Me, I paid $100 for an android box, have cheap flash drives for other people's TVs and happily into the wild yonder I go.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This is exactly what Apple TV does now, it aggregates content. This is the entire function of the "TV" App on Apple TV. It coordinates services and presents a 'unified' search across them..
Good-bye
I don't generally watch much. Most of it is crap, and I've got other shit I'd rather do anyway.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 killer product for Apple.
-T-