Apple Hires Executives From Sony Pictures TV to Lead Push Into Original Programming

[Chupa Chupa]

What new hardware are you imagining? I read this as guys being hired to lead the creation of video content- presumably, that will be shot in (probably) 4K and rendered at 4K, 1080p and SD for iTunes and/or Apple Music content. What new hardware would this spur on? I guess Apple-centric content could be locked to be only available on a new 4KTV but that seems destined to arrive with or without such an effort. And, after you own one of those, what else do you need to buy to play videos?

Just the same hardware Apple has now but with more urgency to keep it all fresh -- unlike now where the ATV4 isn't 4K, iTunes doesn't have 4K, but 4K TVs are very much affordable now and 1080p is only in small screens and budget models.

 

[Kaibelf]

Nothing's funnier knowing this will be for Apple Music and not Apple TV.

Howso? If you think about it, it's basically combining the differentiators of Netflix and Spotify into the same package, without doubling the price (so far). And they would be, obviously, right there on AppleTV for consumption.

Is there not enough TV channels already? How many channels are in your sign-up package? How many do you watch? Do you need any more? Can people not be satisfied?

What are you talking about? This is for content, not channels.

And another TV content provider will arise with it's own subscription. So to see all your favorite TV shows you need:
- Your cable subscription
- Netflix
- Amazon Prime
- Apple TV (soon)

This fragmentation isn't helping anyone. I'll get my stuff from torrents again and buy the show on DVD if I like a show.

1. If you have any internet connection, you can likely survive with just one of those, and you have always had to buy into tiers in the past, so it's disingenuous to act as if this situation is new.
2. So basically, you're going to steal others' work without paying. Classy.

Hiring actual, experienced TV execs? Could produce better results than the reality TV fare they have now.

They've put out ONE show, that's had TWO episodes, and people ended up finding the show interesting for the most part (based on the prior threads on this board) so what exactly did you want immediately out of the gate? The new Sopranos or something?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

New Apple TV with 4K support later this year with the addition of a TV streaming service, similar to that of Music. It will include unlimited streaming of all movies and TV shows from the iTunes store, as well as original content produced by Apple. The only question is live programming, if it will be part of this at all. My guess is no, to start. $50 per month.

I doubt $50.

Look at the existing streaming services. I think it's safe to say they are generally priced in the $35-$65/month range. However, how many of them are running with the Apple margin built in? If we assume Apple gets about the same (cost) deal as major competitors, then tacks on their margin, I'm thinking $50 would be a challenge for just the streaming service piece alone.

Then, add in the ultimate VOD of "unlimited streaming of all movies & TV shows in the iTunes store." The iTunes store is not full of B-movies & shows like much of Netflix. There's plenty of relatively new and coveted classics in the iTunes store. So I don't see a Netflix pricing add-on for unlimited access to all of that. In other words, I don't see tacking on VOD access to everything in the iTunes store at $10/month or $20/month or maybe even $50/month for VOD alone.

My Guess: For a comparable streaming service with the Apple margin, I'd guess $50 might be possible... but probably >$50 or maybe tiers with $50 as a base tier but more toward $70+ to get most of the more popular channels or programming. For unlimited iTunes VOD, I'd (wild) guess a monthly fee at maybe $70. Or again, tiers of access where maybe another $50 could be in there for something less than "unlimited."

Basically, the existing model revolves around monthly revenues of (I estimate) about $125/month per household. That's about $75 for traditional cable/satt on average + about $50 via the OPM subsidy for commercials. I think any good replacement model to be pitched to all of the players involved probably has to START at persisting that level of revenue. Else, which player is going to take the big cut to let Apple pile in on top and get theirs?

I'll hope right with you that Apple can roll out a competitive streaming service, maybe with live programming too and unlimited VOD access everything in the iTunes store for only $50/month but I just don't see it... unless Apple is going to subsidize it to hit that target (which I don't see happening either).

 

[Lesser Evets]

They lost me at "talented TV executives"
I threw up in my mouth a little.

That was where I realized the eventual outcome--COMPLETE GARBAGE.

TV is losing revenue and viewers year-after-year, and it isn't due to all the excuses the execs spew. TV is losing because the content is has had for 15+ years is unwatchable for 80% of the population. Apple has to "think different" if they want serious results. Apple has "thought alike" for many years now.

 

[78Bandit]

More original content creators is a good thing. The entertainment industry has been locked up by the large conglomerates for too long. I love having niche shows available that aren't entirely dependent on getting ratings competitive with network TV for success.

Another exclusive distributor, on the other hand, really sucks. That is going three steps backward from what the freedom of the internet is supposed to offer. Netflix and Hulu were the catalyst for many people cutting the cable cords. Customers could get the programming they wanted without paying for a huge bundle of channels they didn't want. Now this appears to be going to the opposite extreme. Rather than having my favorite programming aggregated among one or two content distributors at a rate significantly less than the cable bundle, now I'm going to have to weed through dozens, if not eventually hundreds, of subscription services with each one believing they are "cheaper than cable" but in the aggregate will drive my potential bill even higher.

To put it another way, my satellite bill that has about 200 channels is about $100, or 50 cents per channel. However, I only watch about 20 channels so I may pay an average of $2 per channel to get what I want through an internet provider. I'm paying four times as much per channel but I'm still saving 60% off my bill. However, if I want the Apple programming I'll likely have to subscribe to Apple Music or even Apple TV for $15 - $20 per month for that one channel's worth of programming. Multiply that by five providers and I'm up to what my satellite bill was for less content.

These distributors getting into exclusive content creation is simply not a good deal for consumers.

 

[thekeyring]

I don't know if this should make me sad that Apple is venturing further into an area that isn't their core competency or excited because it will need exciting hardware to support this venture -- like iTunes supported iPod -- but the content will have to be amazing to sell that hardware. (So far Apple's original content is as unintelligent and unwatchable as most network fare.)

You mean you don't like the one show they've currently released, so all their TV efforts (even after hiring new people to manage it) will be unwatchable?

Terrific logic!

 

[ChrisCW11]

Maybe Apple can hire someone to figure out how to correctly name and re-brand their services because iTunes and Apple Music were originally about music, and then they just dumped a bunch of other unrelated content into them because nobody at Apple is smart enough to figure out where to put non-music related content.

 

[Defthand]

Apple is a huge company with a lot of cash and employees, yet I'm concerned that they can't multitask. Every time they add a new product category or service, the existing ones seem to suffer and stagnate. It's as if they rely on a handful of talent to lead every endeavor.

 

[Tech198]

Original TV programming, meanwhile Netflix and Hulu has the that or TV Beta service. Like anything Apple-ey, I guess its 'take it slow and do it right'

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

More original content creators is a good thing. The entertainment industry has been locked up by the large conglomerates for too long. I love having niche shows available that aren't entirely dependent on getting ratings competitive with network TV for success.

Another exclusive distributor, on the other hand, really sucks. That is going three steps backward from what the freedom of the internet is supposed to offer. Netflix and Hulu were the catalyst for many people cutting the cable cords. Customers could get the programming they wanted without paying for a huge bundle of channels they didn't want. Now this appears to be going to the opposite extreme. Rather than having my favorite programming aggregated among one or two content distributors at a rate significantly less than the cable bundle, now I'm going to have to weed through dozens, if not eventually hundreds, of subscription services with each one believing they are "cheaper than cable" but in the aggregate will drive my potential bill even higher.

To put it another way, my satellite bill that has about 200 channels is about $100, or 50 cents per channel. However, I only watch about 20 channels so I may pay an average of $2 per channel to get what I want through an internet provider. I'm paying four times as much per channel but I'm still saving 60% off my bill. However, if I want the Apple programming I'll likely have to subscribe to Apple Music or even Apple TV for $15 - $20 per month for that one channel's worth of programming. Multiply that by five providers and I'm up to what my satellite bill was for less content.

These distributors getting into exclusive content creation is simply not a good deal for consumers.

The collective (consumer) mentality about the future of television seems to revolve around this idea of more-to-much-more programming for substantially less cost. We're so locked into the idea that it must cost a lot less, yet those who control and serve up the content have NO interest in cutting their own (revenue) throats to deliver that.

Even your math is "wrong" from their point of view. 200 channels for $100 is 50 cents per channel. But how the rest of the chain sees it is $100 per month. Ultimately, they might allow their content to be packaged such that you could buy your 20 channels separately but they still want their $100/month (if not more for going to the trouble of implementing "new model" offerings). So from their perspective, your 200 channels are worth $100 or your 20 channels are worth $100 ($5 per channel in your math). If you further refined your channel wants to 10 channels, they are worth $100/month ($10 per channel). 5 channels ($20 per channel).

Nobody (beyond us consumers) wants the television industry's revenues cut by 30%, 40%, 70% or 90% as so many of us often seem to covet... or even believe is possible. Technology solutions- or even Apple piling in on top- doesn't change that.

As we are already seeing with streaming offerings, pricing that was once imagined to be Netflix-like at $10 or maybe as high at $20-$30/month is generally starting above what was previously slung around as a good "most I will pay" number. And when you add on the channels or programming many actually want, it's as you say: one quickly finds themselves creeping up into regular cable/SATT pricing anyway... but getting access to LESS programming, inferior DVR functionality, etc to boot... AND having to hop app-to-app and box-to-box to get to everything they want to watch.

I suspect that it shouldn't be more than maybe another 2 or 3 years until there is massive whining about the state of "new model" television in which the collective is longing for the "good old days" when there was tons of programming all unified in a single on-screen guide for a relatively cheap price. By then, we'll be paying as much as we did for cable/SATT and cable will have upped the broadband billing to make up for losses to their cableTV revenues. Net result: we'll be paying MORE for less... and the most aggravating part is the various sellers will be able to spin that they gave us what we asked for (except for massive discounts on content).

 

[dragje]

Is there not enough TV channels already? How many channels are in your sign-up package? How many do you watch? Do you need any more? Can people not be satisfied?

I don't need more channels, rather less, but I need more quality. Godthanks my country offers, bbc model, content television. To give an example, I like to watch a program called 'zomergasten' in Holland where a journalist interviews a guest in a 3 hours during show without any kind of breaks. It's not even possible in America to broadcast such a show unfortunately. When people are interesting and they have something to tell combined with television and scenes from movies put together in a coherent television show 3 hours seems like 5 minutes.

The commercial channels I skip, to much commercials on them and lack on interesting content.

 

[DNichter]

I doubt $50.

Look at the existing streaming services. I think it's safe to say they are generally priced in the $35-$65/month range. However, how many of them are running with the Apple margin built in? If we assume Apple gets about the same (cost) deal as major competitors, then tacks on their margin, I'm thinking $50 would be a challenge for just the streaming service piece alone.

Then, add in the ultimate VOD of "unlimited streaming of all movies & TV shows in the iTunes store." The iTunes store is not full of B-movies & shows like much of Netflix. There's plenty of relatively new and coveted classics in the iTunes store. So I don't see a Netflix pricing add-on for unlimited access to all of that. In other words, I don't see tacking on VOD access to everything in the iTunes store at $10/month or $20/month or maybe even $50/month for VOD alone.

My Guess: For a comparable streaming service with the Apple margin, I'd guess $50 might be possible... but probably >$50 or maybe tiers with $50 as a base tier but more toward $70+ to get most of the more popular channels or programming. For unlimited iTunes VOD, I'd (wild) guess a monthly fee at maybe $70. Or again, tiers of access where maybe another $50 could be in there for something less than "unlimited."

Basically, the existing model revolves around monthly revenues of (I estimate) about $125/month per household. That's about $75 for traditional cable/satt on average + about $50 via the OPM subsidy for commercials. I think any good replacement model to be pitched to all of the players involved probably has to START at persisting that level of revenue. Else, which player is going to take the big cut to let Apple pile in on top and get theirs?

I'll hope right with you that Apple can roll out a competitive streaming service, maybe with live programming too and unlimited VOD access everything in the iTunes store for only $50/month but I just don't see it... unless Apple is going to subsidize it to hit that target (which I don't see happening either).

Fair argument there, $50 might be a little low for this type of service. For everything I listed, plus live streaming, $75 would easily be worth it. Then again, getting all the studio executives to sign up for something like this is a tall task. I just think at some point, they need to see the writing on the wall, and offer it up. I can see this being much more lucrative in the long run.
[doublepost=1497624826][/doublepost]

I don't need more channels, rather less, but I need more quality. Godthanks my country offers, bbc model, content television. To give an example, I like to watch a program called 'zomergasten' in Holland where a journalist interviews a guest in a 3 hours during show without any kind of breaks. It's not even possible in America to broadcast such a show unfortunately. When people are interesting and they have something to tell combined with television and scenes from movies put together in a coherent television show 3 hours seems like 5 minutes.

The commercial channels I skip, to much commercials on them and lack on interesting content.

I agree here, I don't need channels at all really. Just allow me to watch whatever show I want, when I want.

 

[drcre8tive]

The phrase "golden age of television"... must have been written by a gen x-er

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Fair argument there, $50 might be a little low for this type of service. For everything I listed, plus live streaming, $75 would easily be worth it. Then again, getting all the studio executives to sign up for something like this is a tall task. I just think at some point, they need to see the writing on the wall, and offer it up. I can see this being much more lucrative in the long run.

The catch is "offering it all up" but for less revenue means something has to give. Else, the premise is that there are big fat profits that could be cut and it can all keep coming "as is" at what would simply be less profit. The reality is likely more like this: if we get a big or even modest discount vs. what we collectively pay now, something has to give on the cost side. Just as we can't collectively decide we want iPhones or Macs to cost 30%, 50% or 70% less because "something has to give" with Apple pricing, these other companies want to get paid what they want for their products too.

So, I suspect discount-to-big-discount vs. what we collectively pay now means significant cuts to the breadth & depth and/or quality of the programming. Expensive (to produce) shows get canceled and cheap-to-produce shows gain exposure. Less pilots of new shows because there's less cash around to finance such pilots. Shows like Cheers & Seinfeld never survive because they aren't almost immediate hits. Etc.

If we also get the collective wish of "commercial free", it amplifies that breadth/depth/quality effect. Kill the commercials subsidy and it sucks a lot of OPM support out of the model. Commercials on those "180 channels I never watch" throw money into a pool that helps pay for programming on the other 10 or 20 channels I do watch. Commercial revenue alone is over $50 per month PER HOUSEHOLD last I checked (a few years ago). So kill the commercials but preserve their revenues to maintain breadth/depth/quality and everybody's monthly bill has to start at about $50/month for ZERO channels.

It's these kinds of issues that casts much doubt on the many views of "the future" of television. I suspect that the big discount that we collectively expect points toward YouTube-like video production (where costs of production are similarly dirt-cheap). Else, I think we have to come around to a "you get what you pay for" mentality with this. I simply don't see a way to get a fat monthly discount and keep all of what I like coming. Something has to give. If it's not me (the consumer) and it's not OPM (in commercial-driven subsidy) who pays up to make up the difference... or who eats the losses?

 

[neutralguy]

I will only subscribe to the streaming service provided by GE or Ford. They should get into streaming and media production business too. After all, it just needs hiring executives from Hollywood production houses. But then on the other hand it reminds me of Yahoo.: a successful Internet juggernaut that wanted to be the media king.

 

[DNichter]

The catch is "offering it all up" but for less revenue means something has to give. Else, the premise is that there are big fat profits that could be cut and it can all keep coming "as is" at what would simply be less profit. The reality is likely more like this: if we get a big or even modest discount vs. what we collectively pay now, something has to give on the cost side. Just as we can't collectively decide we want iPhones or Macs to cost 30%, 50% or 70% less because "something has to give" with Apple pricing, these other companies want to get paid what they want for their products too.

So, I suspect discount-to-big-discount vs. what we collectively pay now means significant cuts to the breadth & depth and/or quality of the programming. Expensive (to produce) shows get canceled and cheap-to-produce shows gain exposure. Less pilots of new shows because there's less cash around to finance such pilots. Shows like Cheers & Seinfeld never survive because they aren't almost immediate hits. Etc.

If we also get the collective wish of "commercial free", it amplifies that breadth/depth/quality effect. Kill the commercials subsidy and it sucks a lot of OPM support out of the model. Commercials on those "180 channels I never watch" throw money into a pool that helps pay for programming on the other 10 or 20 channels I do watch. Commercial revenue alone is over $50 per month PER HOUSEHOLD last I checked (a few years ago). So kill the commercials but preserve their revenues to maintain breadth/depth/quality and everybody's monthly bill has to start at about $50/month for ZERO channels.

It's these kinds of issues that casts much doubt on the many views of "the future" of television. I suspect that the big discount that we collectively expect points toward YouTube-like video production (where costs of production are similarly dirt-cheap). Else, I think we have to come around to a "you get what you pay for" mentality with this. I simply don't see a way to get a fat monthly discount and keep all of what I like coming. Something has to give. If it's not me (the consumer) and it's not OPM (in commercial-driven subsidy) who pays up to make up the difference... or who eats the losses?

There's a lot to process here, but yes, you are correct. Everyone still needs to make their money. Or, does Apple simply eat into their profits a bit (unlikely) and make the service an Apple TV exclusive (likely anyway) and make up some of the profits there. I think if Apple would be okay with making a little less, we might see something like this in the future.

 

[vmachiel]

I wonder if Apple: knows how many failed projects this pair produced well working at Sony? Having worked with these two several years ago at Sony I can tell you firsthand that they play the numbers game. The more crap they throw against the wall they hope that one or two stick. Google "Gay Robot" and see what results come up that this pair tried to sell to the public while at Sony.

Hmmm... member since today telling me to google Gay Robot..nah I'll skip that.

 

[sinsin07]

More original content creators is a good thing. The entertainment industry has been locked up by the large conglomerates for too long. I love having niche shows available that aren't entirely dependent on getting ratings competitive with network TV for success.

Audience still matters:

Netflix is finally acting like a network by canceling shows

Another exclusive distributor, on the other hand, really sucks. That is going three steps backward from what the freedom of the internet is supposed to offer.

And what is: freedom of the internet is suppose to offer?

Netflix and Hulu were the catalyst for many people cutting the cable cords. Customers could get the programming they wanted without paying for a huge bundle of channels they didn't want. Now this appears to be going to the opposite extreme. Rather than having my favorite programming aggregated among one or two content distributors at a rate significantly less than the cable bundle, now I'm going to have to weed through dozens, if not eventually hundreds, of subscription services with each one believing they are "cheaper than cable" but in the aggregate will drive my potential bill even higher.
...snip

So basically, ABC CBS and NBC model all over again.
Brilliant.

 

[femike]

Apple or us don't need this. Its a diversion for them. I would rather Apple continue to make routers than doing this stuff... there is more than enough rubbish on TV.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There's a lot to process here, but yes, you are correct. Everyone still needs to make their money. Or, does Apple simply eat into their profits a bit (unlikely) and make the service an Apple TV exclusive (likely anyway) and make up some of the profits there. I think if Apple would be okay with making a little less, we might see something like this in the future.

I agree... if Apple is willing to make less.

Similarly, Apple has the huge hoard of cash that could be used to "buy" their way into the space. Very desirable things have come up for bidding/sale and Apple has generally passed. One could argue that a lot of DirecTVs subscriber build up was associated with the NFL Sunday Ticket offering. It came up for renewal and bids were open. But apparently, Apple didn't even try. Thursday Night Football. The TimeWarner library. Etc.

The ability to subsidize is certainly there and there's plenty of cash to do it too. Is the will there to use some of that cash for this kind of thing?

 

[DNichter]

I wish Apple wasn't so damn corny though. Their programming will probably be garbage at first.

 

[Bokito]

fixed it for ya.

You don't get my point. Things being more accessible means I buy more of it. Torrents are more accessible than the TV landscape now. The only reason I still buy is because of torrents. Content providers have wasted it for me. Maybe it's better in the USA, but in Europe we get TV shows years late or not at all, Netflix is garbage and amazon is limited to The Grand Tour and a few other shows here. Sometimes the only way to see your favorite TV shows is the 'illegal' way.

 

[diipii]

First against the wall when it all goes down the pooper.

 

[mmcc]

They lost me at "talented TV executives"
I threw up in my mouth a little.

Yes, it was just a matter of time before "media executives" showed up to claim some of that cash at Apple. They always swarm where there is money.

 

[Macaholic868]

Just buy Netflix and be done with it!