As an AAPL shareholder, I'll get one - even if the overall benefit to me is negligible, I'd rather help Apple than Citi, Chase, etc.
Related note - I recently discovered my Chase Amazon Prime card offers an extra 1% on Apple Pay purchases. I wonder if that will change when this new card comes out.
The great thing about contracts is that they expire. Eventually, all of ESPN's current contracts cable companies and whomever will expire, just like Disney's are about to do with Netflix. Then it can do something else. Isn't ESPN owned by Disney? Disney could just say fuck all you cable providers, one by one as their contracts expire. Want ESPN? Subscribe to Disney's Streaming Service, through Disney, or fuck off. All of the other big content companies could do the same thing and consolidate down to 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Providers, each with their own streaming service, with NONE of them offering content to CableTV providers. CableTV could end up providing nothing more than a network connection (their biggest nightmare) that is just a commodity at that point. Now you'd have a situation where the "average person" would have to independently subscribe to those 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Provider Services.
OR, those Big Content Providers can save themselves the expense of running their own distribution services, pay a middle man like Apple to manage it for them in exchange for a fee, and allow consumers to deal with one entity (Apple in this case) and can pick content from participating Big Content Providers ala carte in the market square. Content providers can focus on content. The middle man can focus on running the distribution business and consumers can enjoy the convenience of one-stop menu shopping.
Now take it one step further. The Big Content Providers sign non-exclusive deals with the middle man...so now there are TWENTY middle men. All providing the same service in theory, the same content, but now they are competing against each other to provide the best service, however they define it. Competition can drive down distribution costs for content providers, middlemen have an incentive to avoid complacency, and customers have choices of whom to deal with while still enjoying the convenience of one-stop menu shopping. What's not to love? There is no reason this couldn't happen if everyone played along.
You know why sellers are on Amazon? Because sellers feel they need to be on Amazon. A lot of people don't even bother looking anywhere else when they want to buy general item on-line. If you're not there, you don't even have a chance to make the sale. They're what, something like 54% of all on-line sales? The same kind of market could develop with media. If you're not at the "market square", you're going to sell a lot less than those who are because not everyone is going to beat down a path to your door, wherever it may be. For example, I'm not watching the new Star Trek. Why? Because I'm not fucking signing up with another service just for that purpose.
The content providers are betting their content is so compelling that they can drive people to their own storefront. They are betting AGAINST human laziness and desire for convenience. Personally, I don't think that's a great bet.
I know I'm just an N of 1, but if Disney's MCU stuff becomes ONLY available with a Disney subscription that I have to maintain separately, even for as little as $3/month, Disney can go fuck itself as far as I can concerned. I'll just not watch that content. There is plenty of other content to choose from, and plenty of non-content oriented activities that I can involve myself in.
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).
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 have, they just don't want to deal with its "rules". Well, fuck you! I want to be married to a nice, loving woman who respects herself and still be able to fuck any other woman I find attractive. I can't have that either.
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.
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?
Apple knows this. Maybe it is the secret sauce in its soon-to-be-announced offering.
I for one agree. I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.
What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.
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
I don't want to have to wonder, "is this a good app?" Apple does the vetting for me (supposedly) That's just FINE with me. If some company doesn't want to pony up some cash to Apple, then FUCK THEM, they don't need to be on my damned phone. Pay to play, motherfuckers!
And guess what? Grocery stores get kickbacks from its suppliers too. They only have so much floor space. Do you think a grocery store sells anything that some vendor somewhere wants them to sell? Hell no! They pick and choose. There are winners and losers. Suppliers that DO get put in the store ALSO pay for premium placement on the shelf! Pay to play.
But why? It shouldn't be the purview of the legal system to prevent shitty UX. If a company wants to have a shitty UX, that is between it and its customers. Let the customers decide.
Except maybe not in the USA since your antitrust laws are so stacked to required a tangible financial impact on consumers and completely ignores B2B competition that they are essentially not worthy of the title antitrust laws.
In the U.S., Anti-Trust law exists to protect CONSUMERS, not corporations.
One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a dearth of consumers demanding that Apple cut App Store developer fees or that app developers be able to spam-on-demand app users. They're also not asking for price increases on apps or services obtained through the App Store. In fact, ACTUAL BUYERS of Apple's products and services seem to be generally quite happy with them. Those that are not go buy an Android or some other device. They have plenty of options to choose from too - and almost all of them are CHEAPER. So...yeah...kinda hard to make the case that consumers are being materially hurt by Apple's policies.
I imagine that Apple has a lot of API calls and OS functions that it keeps to itself too. Maybe it should be forced to publish all of that....who cares if security goes to shit.
1). I don't give a shit about "discovering" music. I listen to the same shit I've been listening to since the 80s.
2). I just want one billing source to deal with. I will gladly pay extra for that. Spotify objects to using that billing source and paying whatever fee may be involved? Well fuck them then.
3). As an AAPL shareholder, I'd rather give money to Apple than some other company, when a reasonable opportunity to do so exists.
If you want to "find out" about other music, go on the web and find out about it. Nothing is stopping you.
As for Spotify...it's a service where people LISTEN to stuff. What is to stop Spotify from injecting into its audio stream ads like, "Hey, we have a special deal for you that we know you would live - click the button on the app now!" Nothing! But oh, wait, that's right! Their users don't want to be bothered listening to their stupid fucking ads. Well guess what?! They don't want to get emails or text messages with their stupid fucking ads either!
Perhaps artists should focus on making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising
What steps can a recording artist take toward "making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising" in each of the following cases?
A. The recording artist is independent and relies on income from a day job, which rules out touring, but seeks a way to recover the costs of further production of recordings. B. The recording artist specializes in a musical style that is impractical to perform live, such as the second half of The Beatles' discography or several forms of electronic dance music.
Maybe such artists should transition to more commercial marketable music if...you know...they want to be commercially successful.
And Spotify is free to not be on the iPhone if they think their app is worth more than the the 70% of the price they charge for it on the App Store. They can also, wait for it, INCREASE THEIR PRICE to what they DO think it is worth - and then find out if their customers agree with them.
Slashdot Mirror
As an AAPL shareholder, I'll get one - even if the overall benefit to me is negligible, I'd rather help Apple than Citi, Chase, etc.
Related note - I recently discovered my Chase Amazon Prime card offers an extra 1% on Apple Pay purchases. I wonder if that will change when this new card comes out.
The great thing about contracts is that they expire. Eventually, all of ESPN's current contracts cable companies and whomever will expire, just like Disney's are about to do with Netflix. Then it can do something else. Isn't ESPN owned by Disney? Disney could just say fuck all you cable providers, one by one as their contracts expire. Want ESPN? Subscribe to Disney's Streaming Service, through Disney, or fuck off. All of the other big content companies could do the same thing and consolidate down to 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Providers, each with their own streaming service, with NONE of them offering content to CableTV providers. CableTV could end up providing nothing more than a network connection (their biggest nightmare) that is just a commodity at that point. Now you'd have a situation where the "average person" would have to independently subscribe to those 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Provider Services.
OR, those Big Content Providers can save themselves the expense of running their own distribution services, pay a middle man like Apple to manage it for them in exchange for a fee, and allow consumers to deal with one entity (Apple in this case) and can pick content from participating Big Content Providers ala carte in the market square. Content providers can focus on content. The middle man can focus on running the distribution business and consumers can enjoy the convenience of one-stop menu shopping.
Now take it one step further. The Big Content Providers sign non-exclusive deals with the middle man...so now there are TWENTY middle men. All providing the same service in theory, the same content, but now they are competing against each other to provide the best service, however they define it. Competition can drive down distribution costs for content providers, middlemen have an incentive to avoid complacency, and customers have choices of whom to deal with while still enjoying the convenience of one-stop menu shopping. What's not to love? There is no reason this couldn't happen if everyone played along.
You know why sellers are on Amazon? Because sellers feel they need to be on Amazon. A lot of people don't even bother looking anywhere else when they want to buy general item on-line. If you're not there, you don't even have a chance to make the sale. They're what, something like 54% of all on-line sales? The same kind of market could develop with media. If you're not at the "market square", you're going to sell a lot less than those who are because not everyone is going to beat down a path to your door, wherever it may be. For example, I'm not watching the new Star Trek. Why? Because I'm not fucking signing up with another service just for that purpose.
The content providers are betting their content is so compelling that they can drive people to their own storefront. They are betting AGAINST human laziness and desire for convenience. Personally, I don't think that's a great bet.
I know I'm just an N of 1, but if Disney's MCU stuff becomes ONLY available with a Disney subscription that I have to maintain separately, even for as little as $3/month, Disney can go fuck itself as far as I can concerned. I'll just not watch that content. There is plenty of other content to choose from, and plenty of non-content oriented activities that I can involve myself in.
Actually it's more like selling a car without a tire pressure indicator.
... for F1 drivers whose life depends on that indicator.
If you felt your life depended on the indicator, then why didn't you buy the indicator?
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).
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 have, they just don't want to deal with its "rules". Well, fuck you! I want to be married to a nice, loving woman who respects herself and still be able to fuck any other woman I find attractive. I can't have that either.
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.
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. (:
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.
I don't generally watch much. Most of it is crap, and I've got other shit I'd rather do anyway.
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?
Apple knows this. Maybe it is the secret sauce in its soon-to-be-announced offering.
I for one agree. I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.
What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.
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.
Yep. Watched 7 seasons for $15. That is a pretty good value (:
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.
Right. So sue if that day actually comes, instead of being something youâ(TM)ve pulled out of your ass.
This is a good point.
I don't want to have to wonder, "is this a good app?" Apple does the vetting for me (supposedly) That's just FINE with me. If some company doesn't want to pony up some cash to Apple, then FUCK THEM, they don't need to be on my damned phone. Pay to play, motherfuckers!
And guess what? Grocery stores get kickbacks from its suppliers too. They only have so much floor space. Do you think a grocery store sells anything that some vendor somewhere wants them to sell? Hell no! They pick and choose. There are winners and losers. Suppliers that DO get put in the store ALSO pay for premium placement on the shelf! Pay to play.
Don't believe it?
https://qz.com/807723/inside-t...
But why? It shouldn't be the purview of the legal system to prevent shitty UX. If a company wants to have a shitty UX, that is between it and its customers. Let the customers decide.
I ALSO chose to spend money on shit I wanted instead of shit I needed.
When may I expect my big check from the Federal Government to cover my poor decision-making?
Except maybe not in the USA since your antitrust laws are so stacked to required a tangible financial impact on consumers and completely ignores B2B competition that they are essentially not worthy of the title antitrust laws.
In the U.S., Anti-Trust law exists to protect CONSUMERS, not corporations.
One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a dearth of consumers demanding that Apple cut App Store developer fees or that app developers be able to spam-on-demand app users. They're also not asking for price increases on apps or services obtained through the App Store. In fact, ACTUAL BUYERS of Apple's products and services seem to be generally quite happy with them. Those that are not go buy an Android or some other device. They have plenty of options to choose from too - and almost all of them are CHEAPER. So...yeah...kinda hard to make the case that consumers are being materially hurt by Apple's policies.
I imagine that Apple has a lot of API calls and OS functions that it keeps to itself too. Maybe it should be forced to publish all of that....who cares if security goes to shit.
Oh, and I don't give a shit about Siri integration either. I have that shit turned off.
I use Apple Music simply because:
1). I don't give a shit about "discovering" music. I listen to the same shit I've been listening to since the 80s.
2). I just want one billing source to deal with. I will gladly pay extra for that. Spotify objects to using that billing source and paying whatever fee may be involved? Well fuck them then.
3). As an AAPL shareholder, I'd rather give money to Apple than some other company, when a reasonable opportunity to do so exists.
If you want to "find out" about other music, go on the web and find out about it. Nothing is stopping you.
As for Spotify...it's a service where people LISTEN to stuff. What is to stop Spotify from injecting into its audio stream ads like, "Hey, we have a special deal for you that we know you would live - click the button on the app now!" Nothing! But oh, wait, that's right! Their users don't want to be bothered listening to their stupid fucking ads. Well guess what?! They don't want to get emails or text messages with their stupid fucking ads either!
It would be awesome if the government cut my tax down to only 30% of my income.
Perhaps artists should focus on making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising
What steps can a recording artist take toward "making their money on concert ticket sales and merchandising" in each of the following cases?
A. The recording artist is independent and relies on income from a day job, which rules out touring, but seeks a way to recover the costs of further production of recordings.
B. The recording artist specializes in a musical style that is impractical to perform live, such as the second half of The Beatles' discography or several forms of electronic dance music.
Maybe such artists should transition to more commercial marketable music if...you know...they want to be commercially successful.
And Spotify is free to not be on the iPhone if they think their app is worth more than the the 70% of the price they charge for it on the App Store. They can also, wait for it, INCREASE THEIR PRICE to what they DO think it is worth - and then find out if their customers agree with them.