FORUMS: list search recent posts

tv ? 2

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
tony west
tv ? 2
on Dec 12, 2012 at 6:37:18 pm

I believe I had this 6 months ago : )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/itv-apple-testing-designs-itv_n_22...

Not a done deal by any stretch, but it seems I wasn't so way out there with my thought back then.


Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 12, 2012 at 8:25:10 pm

I'll see your post... and raise you.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413142,00.asp

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 1:53:54 am

And I raise both of you"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-disney-deal-means-105030674.html

Interesting that Disney would make such a deal with Netflix if Apple was close to something considering the history of Apple to Pixar to Disney and Jobs being on the board and all...


Michael


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 3:36:58 am

[Michael Phillips] "Interesting that Disney would make such a deal with Netflix if Apple was close to something considering the history of Apple to Pixar to Disney and Jobs being on the board and all..."

Unless Apple was just about to buy Netflix....
......
and with all those contracts start their subscription streaming service
.....
and dump the DVD/Blu-Ray rentals.

Disruptive wouldn't that be?



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 4:23:45 am

Well played by you all : )


I'm looking forward to seeing how it shakes out. I like Netflix, but would love to stream more stuff than they currently offer.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 5:54:49 am

[Craig Seeman] "Unless Apple was just about to buy Netflix....
......
and with all those contracts start their subscription streaming service
.....
and dump the DVD/Blu-Ray rentals.

Disruptive wouldn't that be?"


Apple buys Netflix.
Apple makes it Mac/iOS only because there's no way they will keep their ace-in-the-hole acquisition cross platform.
Adoption rate sucks because people are pissed that Netflix now requires an Apple device.
Amazon jumps for joy as former Netflix users flood over to Amazon Prime.




Return to posts index


Michael Phillips
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 1:56:46 pm

Not to mention Redbox getting into the streaming game with a deal just made with Epix that includes 4 physical DVD's month from local vending machine + Streaming for $8/month. $9/month gives you Blue Ray from machine. Also, what is expected service in all parts of the US as well as data caps from mobiel service, etc. all have a play (and a hand in getting their share of the pipe):

http://mashable.com/2012/09/07/wistia-hd-video-report/

Michael


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 3:36:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple makes it Mac/iOS only because there's no way they will keep their ace-in-the-hole acquisition cross platform."

iTunes is cross platform and the AppleTV is nominally as well. So Mac/iOS only has not been part of their business strategy.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 8:23:13 pm

[Craig Seeman] "iTunes is cross platform and the AppleTV is nominally as well. So Mac/iOS only has not been part of their business strategy."

iTunes is cross platform because it allows more people to buy Apple hardware (iPods, iPads, iPhones & Apple TVs). How would Apple buying Netflix (which is already available on Apple devices) sell more Apple TVs unless Netflix becomes exclusive to Apple?




Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 9:50:44 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "more Apple TVs unless Netflix becomes exclusive to Apple?"

You won't see it on Android. You'd have no problem installing iTunes on Windows though. So to the extent you'll need iOS vs Android, yet that would be exclusive but Mac vs Windows, that won't be. Sharing will be through iCloud of course.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 10:48:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "You won't see it on Android. You'd have no problem installing iTunes on Windows though. So to the extent you'll need iOS vs Android, yet that would be exclusive but Mac vs Windows, that won't be. Sharing will be through iCloud of course."

I don't follow. Netflix is available for WebOS, iOS, Android, PS3, 360, Wii/Wii U, HDTVs, Bluray players, via browser support on OS X, Windows and (unofficially) Linux as well as various media boxes (Roku, Seagate, WD, etc.,). If Apple buys Netflix and turns it into an Apple-only service (iTunes and/or apple hardware) I don't see all those Netflix users coming along for the ride. Netflix is available on nearly 800 different devices and over 50% of Netflix traffic goes to video game consoles. That's a whole lof of user base to piss off especially with Amazon and Verizon/Redbox waiting in the wings.

http://gigaom.com/video/netflix-by-the-numbers/




Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 5:42:59 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I don't follow"

Because you're thinking about market share and Apple things about profits selling hardware.

[Andrew Kimery] "That's a whole lof of user base to piss off especially with Amazon and Verizon/Redbox waiting in the wings."

Netflix market share dwarves them all by huge amounts. Apple could lose a a huge chunk of that and still make money. In fact, it might be the only way (or at least an important way) for Apple to make money if they entered the HDTV market with an "exclusive" Netflix feature.

Under stand the "wings" are only as good as the contracts which give access to content. This is why the industry fears that Apple will do to Movies/TV what it did to the music industry with iTunes.

All this is speculative but if Apple is going to sell an HDTV in a flooded market and its goal is exclusive content to sell hardware, buying Netflix would be one way to do it. They'd love for every Windows computer with iTunes to buy either an iOS device or Apple HDTV (if they make such).



Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 6:28:37 am

[Craig Seeman] "Because you're thinking about market share and Apple things about profits selling hardware."

No, I am thinking about hardware sales and I don't think Apple will sell a lot of hardware if their AppleTV 'killer app' is to buy Netflix, kill it, roll the former Netflix content into iTunes and launch their own Apple-branded subscription streaming service. Are all the customers that currently watch Netflix on non-Apple devices (which I'm going to guess is the vast majority of them) going to buy an Apple device and pay Apple a monthly fee to get back what Apple just took from them? I know everyone loves Apple right now but I just don't see customers at large being happy and supportive that their once ubiquitous Netflix subscription is now an Apple only service.

I could see Apple paying big bucks for exclusive content and launching a Netflix rival service as a way to kick off a new and improved AppleTV but I don't seem them acquiring Netflix and making it Apple only. I could also see making a refined voice and gesture based AppleTV that would let you just say, "I want to watch Breaking Bad" and Siri will respond, "Do you want to watch Breaking Bad using Netflix or Amazon?" Other devices, like the 360 w/Kinect, already let you search by voice and then choose which video service you want stream from but UI is Apple's thing so I'm sure they will do what others have already done but a bit better.




Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 12:45:45 pm

This started off with the question about a company closely tied to Apple, Disney, having a contract advantageous to Netflix.

Netflix dwarves everyone including iTunes video buy/rental as far as subscriber base. Apple's main purpose in controlling content is to sell hardware. Again that does not mean having the biggest market share. Apple only needs a subset of the the Netflix customer base to increase sales on all their devices. Apple only needs the increase in sales to be greater than the cost of buying Netflix. If Netflix dominates with exclusive contracts, the customer options for "going elsewhere" will be limited. It has been fairly limited as it is. That's why customers use Netflix. They have a HUGE library. Getting Disney is big. People will follow to retain their best movie selection.

Apple has not been able to secure the contracts to create a rival in the video buy/rental industry. That's PRECISELY THEIR PROBLEM. Disney did NOT sign an exclusive with Apple and that has led to this speculation. Their only end run around that is by gaining control of those contracts buy purchasing the biggest company in that business.

Apple's motive is to sell hardware. A company with close ties to Apple (Disney) signed a contract with Netflix, not iTunes. Connect the dots. What's the benefit to Apple's hardware sales? You seem to avoid the Disney connection to Apple in all your reasoning.

Apple doesn't simply win through better UI. iOS wins because of greater App content (and better more income for developers because Apple users buy more), iOS wins because iTunes has the largest music selection. iOS wins because Apple sells hardware that runs iOS even though it doesn't always have the dominant market share. Apple is NOT DOMINATING the video market, Netflix is though. If AppleTV and AppleHDTV (assuming they're making one) is to be profitable it will ONLY be if Apple can dominate in content control as they have done with music.

You seem to be thinking about the customer. Apple's thinking about selling hardware.

Maybe Disney's move is meaningless. The alternative is that it would be setting up an Apple move and Apple is not about to provide a service to third party hardware. No way, no how, not with their business model. It will run on Windows because they'll want Windows users to buy iOS devices (as they do with iTunes music) and/or buy AppleHDTV. I don't see any viable way for Apple to make money in a commodity market like HDTVs with long buy cycles, unless Apple has control over content.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 5:12:06 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Apple has not been able to secure the contracts to create a rival in the video buy/rental industry. That's PRECISELY THEIR PROBLEM. Disney did NOT sign an exclusive with Apple and that has led to this speculation. Their only end run around that is by gaining control of those contracts buy purchasing the biggest company in that business."

Contracts are not necessarily transferable.

It's very likely that Disney has the right to cancel the contract if Netflix is acquired, specifically to protect themselves against the situation you're describing.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 5:46:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Contracts are not necessarily transferable.

It's very likely that Disney has the right to cancel the contract if Netflix is acquired, specifically to protect themselves against the situation you're describing."


Specific to Disney is their relationship with Apple. I'm not sure what their position would be. Generally speaking, sure contracts are not necessarily transferable nor do we know which ones have such built in. Keep in mind the flux Netflix went with announcements about splitting the Optical Disc service into a separate business. Also they lost a big one with Starz.

There's dealing with the "first release" contract stuff that goes to retail buy first, then disk rental and finally streaming. The last often being the furthest from the release of a movie for "Hollywood" movies. At the other end there's the TV market.

Overall Apple's video library is small, unlike their music library, so they're going to have to get "aggressive" one way or another if content is to be the hook. I don't doubt they'd try to expand their video library through acquisitions if direct negotiation with distributors is failing. I can't assume one way or another on the contract state of the entire Netflix library. It just has to have enough that Apple can gain control of for it to be valuable. What "enough" is is anybody's guess.

We don't know how substantial their HDTV rumors are but I can't even see looking in that direction unless Apple had a "content ace" up their sleeve.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 6:07:52 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I can't assume one way or another on the contract state of the entire Netflix library. It just has to have enough that Apple can gain control of for it to be valuable. What "enough" is is anybody's guess."

Honestly, I'd be shocked if any the distribution contracts were assignable. Otherwise, Studio A could simply buy Netflix and control Studio B's streaming distribution against their will for the length of Studio B's contract with Netflix. What's in it for the studios to make Netflix so valuable by sacrificing downstream control of their streaming distribution rights?

Personally, I find it frustrating I have to "buy" multiple digital copies of media from different vendors to be able to watch it on different devices. As a consumer, I'm cheering for a hardware-independent digital distribution system.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 6:28:42 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Honestly, I'd be shocked if any the distribution contracts were assignable. Otherwise, Studio A could simply buy Netflix and control Studio B's streaming distribution against their will for the length of Studio B's contract with Netflix. What's in it for the studios to make Netflix so valuable by sacrificing downstream control of their streaming distribution rights?"

I'm not sure the contracts for Optical Discs subscriptions are the same as for streaming. Notice the differences in content. It seems not all of their optical disc contract even becoming streaming available so far down the road in its life that the value has declined considerably. In fact I think this is part of Netflix's dilemma. i don't think you can lump them together. Neither did Netflix apparently. I understand part of the attempted split was the hope that they'd negotiate for better content on the streaming side.

In other words if Netflix were purchased it may mean a near complete loss of the optical disc catalogue. Given that Apple has some portion of that, they may really have an interest in the streaming catalogue to "bulk up" their iTunes offerings and give them an avenue to a subscription based service. Even if it means a renegotiation, if Apple feels they'd be in a much better position to negotiate it might be worth it to them.

[Walter Soyka] "Personally, I find it frustrating I have to "buy" multiple digital copies of media from different vendors to be able to watch it on different devices. As a consumer, I'm cheering for a hardware-independent digital distribution system."

Which would seem to be opposite of Apple's goals. You can get Netflix on virtually anything at the moment though. That's about as hardware independent as I can imagine. That's valuable to both Netflix and the Studio distributors. Apple will have to play hardball to get the Studio distributors to budge... and they may. Again though, keep in mind that Netflex streaming library is not their most valuable stuff. This has been Netflix's problem as well.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 7:05:36 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I'm not sure the contracts for Optical Discs subscriptions are the same as for streaming. Notice the differences in content. It seems not all of their optical disc contract even becoming streaming available so far down the road in its life that the value has declined considerably. In fact I think this is part of Netflix's dilemma. i don't think you can lump them together. Neither did Netflix apparently. I understand part of the attempted split was the hope that they'd negotiate for better content on the streaming side."

I didn't mean to lump them together. For the purposes of our discussion, I'm ignoring shiny discs altogether and focusing only on streaming.


[Craig Seeman] "In other words if Netflix were purchased it may mean a near complete loss of the optical disc catalogue. Given that Apple has some portion of that, they may really have an interest in the streaming catalogue to "bulk up" their iTunes offerings and give them an avenue to a subscription based service. Even if it means a renegotiation, if Apple feels they'd be in a much better position to negotiate it might be worth it to them."

Everyone playing in this space must be aware of Apple's ambitions and their Scrooge McDuck piles of cash [link]. If the studios want to avoid the labels' fates, then they'll be as vigilant about Apple buying their way through the backdoor as they are negotiating their way through the front.

If Netflix were of the kind of strategic value to Apple that you're suggesting, then the studios' counsel is failing them.

I'm not saying this can't or won't happen -- I'm just saying that I don't think this is the most likely outcome.


[Craig Seeman] "Which would seem to be opposite of Apple's goals."

It is certainly the opposite of Apple's goals. Apple pursues lock-in today the way Microsoft did in the 90s. They were a lot more open in the "Rip. Mix. Burn" days, when the user experience sold computers. Now that content sells devices, it's a different story. Again, just like the old Microsoft of 15 years ago, it's appealing in the short term, but a little scary in the long term.



[Craig Seeman] "You can get Netflix on virtually anything at the moment though. That's about as hardware independent as I can imagine. "

Netflix streaming gets costly fast on the go, and it's useless in mobile situations like airplanes. Downloading (or at least caching) content would be valuable.


[Craig Seeman] "Apple will have to play hardball to get the Studio distributors to budge... and they may. Again though, keep in mind that Netflex streaming library is not their most valuable stuff. This has been Netflix's problem as well."

The studios recognize the value of their holdings, and they want to ensure they are getting at least their fair share of that value. That's good business.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 7:50:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If the studios want to avoid the labels' fates, then they'll be as vigilant about Apple buying their way through the backdoor as they are negotiating their way through the front."

I'm sure they are. That's why Apple is probably poking around nooks and crannies. That's why I also find all this talk about AppleHDTV odd. I just can't see that happening unless they've got an idea about getting content. They may just be "tech ready" should the "contract content solution" materialize and nothing more.

[Walter Soyka] "If Netflix were of the kind of strategic value to Apple that you're suggesting, then the studios' counsel is failing them."

I'm not sure of Netflix's real value to Apple but I see it as a possibility if, and only if, all the dominos were in the right place. I have not doubt that Apple's counsel is looking for spaces in between the character kerning for holes to exploit. Not that they'll find it but if Apple is even spending a few farthings for something more than their AppleTV hobby it's because they feel there's a reason to be ready "just in case."

Netflix might be a bit of a mess and it might be as a result of their attempted split . . . so who knows if Apple is exploring a small wound with a poison dart.

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not saying this can't or won't happen -- I'm just saying that I don't think this is the most likely outcome."

Yet on the other hand I don't see them getting anywhere through "normal" negotiation much as you seem to indicate as well. They have to have "some strategic position" to strong arm. I can't see too many places for that to happen (there probably aren't too many).

[Walter Soyka] "Apple pursues lock-in today the way Microsoft did in the 90s."

I was going to use that analogy in my last post actually.


[Walter Soyka] "The studios recognize the value of their holdings, and they want to ensure they are getting at least their fair share of that value. That's good business."

But I'm not sure what other markets "Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader" has or even the 1993 season of X-Files at this point. Not that they don't have value, they do but again what's on Netflix Streaming is not the premium "shiny disc" content. It's not that Apple would want these at lower prices but the "strong arm" position would be, "we'll take over the contracts and pay you what you were getting from Netflix." That wouldn't work on premium content because the studio won't stand for being shut out of other revenue streams so they'd lose a lot more than that on an Apple monopoly.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 15, 2012 at 7:52:10 pm

My 2 cents.

Apple's largest advantage in this space, to my thinking, is in two areas.
A - they have a zillion customer credit cards on file tied into a secure purchase system that is robust and works really, really well.
B - they have the lions share of agile, personal viewing devices under the control of a single vendor.

I think the compelling case for Apple to consolidate TV is simply the one that drove the success of the original iTMS - which is that they made it EASY to consume content via a single portal and not have to break the law to do it.

Face it - every single bit of content we're discussing here is available via Torrent the day after it first appears on the planet.

To make the strongest possible business going forward, big companies are in trouble if they rely too much on enforced scarcity as a business plan driver. There's are a couple of generations out there already schooled in getting around those kind of barriers - so erecting them is largely a matter of annoying your next generation of customers. Not smart, IMO.

I think the better bet is systems that make it EASY for customers to access and use content at will at a palatable price.

Personally, Apple buying NetFlix would have basically ONE impact on me.

Instead of managing TWO accounts - I'd get to manage ONE. Win for me.

If I perceive that there's no significant difference in quality of product or price (within limits) then ONE vendor beats TWO - all other things being equal.

I do NOT want to be in a world where I have to maintain discrete billing accounts with Apple, NetFlix, Hulu, NBC, etc, etc, etc, to get to the content I want. If nothing else it's disheartening to have to pay the overhead and profits of a dozen companies to get access to the content I prefer.

I'll eventually pick the ONE that most meets my needs - and either do without or "cherry pick" content from the others that I don't feel I can live without. But I'm decreasingly willing to pay subscription fees to 10 companies to deliver what are largely overlapping services with much of the same content in their back-catalogs.

YMMV.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 16, 2012 at 6:48:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "Apple's largest advantage in this space, to my thinking, is in two areas.
A - they have a zillion customer credit cards on file tied into a secure purchase system that is robust and works really, really well.
B - they have the lions share of agile, personal viewing devices under the control of a single vendor."


In fact a big part of the hullaballoo when Netflix says they were going to split optical and streaming into two companies or two services, was how inconvenient it would be to manage two accounts.

Even thought today you can get both iTunes and Netflix on any iOS device including AppleTV, there's a major strong attraction in the market to desire single account convenience.

The advantage to Apple is that the very large Netflix subscriber base would exponentially grow the iTunes subscriber base (as far as video goes).

How upset would currently Netflix subscribers be to add an AppleTV to the mix? Many, like myself, may already own iPhones or iPads but not AppleTVs. I might grumble mildly if I had to move from my Samsung connected device (Blu-ray) to an AppleTV but I suspect most would make the move.

Consumers have been through these bounces before with Netflix. Remember there was a time not too long ago when streaming was simply an additional feature to the DVD rental service. They split those and raised prices and while there was some blowback for a bit, things settled down. I seriously doubt it would be catastrophic if Apple bought Netflix and integrated the subscription service into iTunes.

I also think the Studio really don't have too many places to run to with comparable volume that would pay their contracts. That's why I think this would be the potential strong arm tactic Apple could do.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 13, 2012 at 9:49:36 pm

No, but it's been a significant part of their business strategy. Besides itunes, like everything else Apple originated, on Windows, sucks.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 4:32:55 pm

On a somewhat related note:

TVBizwire
One Step Closer to 'TV Everywhere': Cox and Disney Ink Wide-Ranging Carriage Deal Reuters

Cox Communications and The Walt Disney Co. have reached a long-term carriage deal that expands options for watching Disney-owned networks both in and out of the home, reports Reuters.

Live and on-demand content from Disney networks, including ABC and ESPN, will be available to Cox customers through its pay TV service and on a range of devices, including gaming consoles and mobile phones, the story says.

The deal is part of the cable industry's effort to achieve the goal of "TV Everywhere," allowing viewers to watch what they want at different times and on various devices, the piece notes.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 5:00:32 pm

and add to that

A&E, HISTORY, and Lifetime launch iPad apps with full episodes, additional content for Xfinity TV users
http://9to5mac.com/2012/12/13/ae-history-and-lifetime-launch-ipad-apps-with...

Xfinity is Comcast.

You don't need an iOS devices as these apps will also be available on Android. You're still encouraged to have cable (Comcast/Xfinity) to get access to additional content.

Basically all this is an example of why Apple can't really make headway in video sales/rental on iTunes as a driver of iOS device sales. Do you think Apple is going to give up in this arena or might they be working on counter maneuvers?



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31:40 pm

Craig,

I totally get what you are saying (I've had similar discussions with others about this same topic) I just disagree with your underlying premise that customers will be okay with Apple buying Netflix and making it an solely iTunes-based service.

The iPod paved the way for the iTMS and the iPhone paved the way for the App Store. If the hardware wasn't up to snuff the media/software sales side of things wouldn't blossom. So the big question, in my mind, is how is Apple going to turn AppleTV into a must have piece of hardware?

We all agree that content is key for a video distribution service (and in Apple's case AppleTV hardware sales) but content distributors and producers are 1. leery of Apple due to how Apple was able to corner the digital music market early (not to mention dictate terms to AT&T) and 2. times have changed since the iTMS launched. Companies now, by way of a free app, can reach users directly on mobile devices, home theater equipment and video game consoles.

That's why I swung back around to Apple's UI strength. AppleTV used to do something unique but it no longer does. Apple's strength the past decade has to been to do what others have done but with better execution. If they can do that and offer more content (not even exclusive content) then I think they can wedge themselves into the living room on marketing and doing things just a little better, a little smoother, than the competition. Some sort of Siri-enable thing that helps you easily find and organize the content you are interested in and it of course ties in with the rest of your Apple devices.

Apple takes pride in their hardware and I can't see them elevating AppleTV out of 'hobby' status until they think they have a game changing pice of hardware to sell.




Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 14, 2012 at 10:08:42 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I just disagree with your underlying premise that customers will be okay with Apple buying Netflix and making it an solely iTunes-based service. "

I didn't say customers would be happy. Some would argue the fundamental existence of this very forum as proof of that.

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple takes pride in their hardware and I can't see them elevating AppleTV out of 'hobby' status until they think they have a game changing pice of hardware to sell."

And the content to go with it. Apple is about control of content. That' been integrated into their business model whether it's iTunes or, now, even the Mac App store.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: tv ? 2
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:11:06 am

[Craig Seeman] "I didn't say customers would be happy. Some would argue the fundamental existence of this very forum as proof of that."

There's a big difference though between FCP Legend & FCPX and Apple buying Netflix and turning it into an Apple-only service. At the most basic level FCPX is an attempt to bring editing to a broader audience while what we are talking about is bringing Netflix's content, which already reaches a very broad audience, to a much smaller audience and hoping that the big audience pays the price of admission and follows along.


[Craig Seeman] "And the content to go with it. Apple is about control of content. That' been integrated into their business model whether it's iTunes or, now, even the Mac App store."

And the content to go with it of course, but if the hardware is poor that's a problem. That's the case w/AppleTV right now. There's nothing that stands out about it so very few people, relatively speaking, are buying it. Same thing when Roku first came out. It was the only way to get Netflix on your TV besides using a computer (which was a pain) but that wasn't a compelling enough reason for people to buy an otherwise lackluster box. Hardware and the user experience comes first with Apple and I don't think this case is any different.




Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]