Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One word "Pixar"
[doublepost=1454105695][/doublepost]

Think of Pixar, or have you forgotten Steve Jobs owned that too at one stage.

If I had to place a bet today, I'd say Apple will buy Time Warner which is likely going to be for sale this year. Apple already expressing their interest in Time Warner Cable assets which are mostly Time Warner holdings, is a pretty clear indicator about how this could all come together for Apple. Murdock attempted to buy the studio last year in order to get CNN, with little or no interest in the film/TV division. Apple could sell off CNN, among other assets which don't suit their needs. They don't even have to roll the studio into Apple.
 
So Eddy Cue is following Netflix's and Amazon's lead? Not surprising he's skating to where the puck was.

If he ends up buying TW, I hope it turns out better than his Beats purchase.

Personally, I think Apple should focus on tying up exclusives to live sporting events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak and Rogifan
Basically the greedy luddites at CBS, ABC, Fox, Disney, and Viacom, etc. are just creating another serious competitor like Netflix and Amazon who will be producing quality content rather than stupid reality TV shows. Go for it.
 
They did a fantastic with Infinity Blade and Real Racing..so why not

Apple original content will probably be focused on their technology as well, so it means Apple has to go deeper to succeed instead of relying on some third parties
[doublepost=1454114332][/doublepost]
The biggest change to Apple that Steve Jobs made after coming back was getting rid of the crap and bloat. If this headline comes true, this would be the start of the end.
Steve Jobs was involved in making the Infinity Blade, and since when the content is bloat? the reason why the computer evolved was because of the content
 
Great ! Another service to add to my capped home internet !!
J/k... If true, I'm all for this but it def sucks for those with data caps. We need to get that straightened out asap
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak
Programming that is exclusive to one streaming service or another is a pox on the industry. Let Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, etc compete on who can provide the best package(s) of programming for various customers (e.g. who has the best selection of 1970s TV programs, or sci-fi films, or whatever), not by setting themselves up as the only place that we can watch a particular program.
[doublepost=1454120461][/doublepost]
Please no. These will be shows according to Apple's diversity standards. So every shows has at least one black transgender who is married to a girl whose sister misses at least one arm.
You'll still have CBS and Fox News to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thermodynamic
This is exactly what I suggested Apple do in another thread, and it wasn't a very popular opinion.
 
Certainly works. The most content creators we have, the better for us, the consumers.

Not really. Not when you pay $80/mo for eight different outlets to get the programs you want. About as expensive as cable in the end... new boss = old boss?

Besides, anyone with eyes and ears has seen how monopolies have destroyed competition. Or how deregulation has led to the reduction of media companies down to 6 and still dropping. While we're told more competition is good over the decades, how come we're seeing less and less? ;) Can't say "not good enough" when "price wars and merging with or driving away competition" seem to be more frequent?
[doublepost=1454122496][/doublepost]
Programming that is exclusive to one streaming service or another is a pox on the industry. Let Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, etc compete on who can provide the best package(s) of programming for various customers (e.g. who has the best selection of 1970s TV programs, or sci-fi films, or whatever), not by setting themselves up as the only place that we can watch a particular program.
[doublepost=1454120461][/doublepost]

This should be fun. Especially with the bizarre licensing systems where one drops a program after x number of years and oh by the way you're making a big assumption that some other carrier will pay the money for the license fee...
[doublepost=1454122547][/doublepost]
So Eddy Cue is following Netflix's and Amazon's lead? Not surprising he's skating to where the puck was.

If he ends up buying TW, I hope it turns out better than his Beats purchase.

Personally, I think Apple should focus on tying up exclusives to live sporting events.

Let the sports companies pay for it. With corporate welfare and the tax free status they enjoy, they can return more to the community too. As long as people can continue to afford the sheer cost of tickets...
[doublepost=1454122640][/doublepost]
Basically the greedy luddites at CBS, ABC, Fox, Disney, and Viacom, etc. are just creating another serious competitor like Netflix and Amazon who will be producing quality content rather than stupid reality TV shows. Go for it.

Remove the word "quality" and you might be onto something... keep in mind that there's no reason they won't move to "reality" shows because less creative talent (thus less money, duh) is needed to cultivate a "reality" show...
[doublepost=1454122735][/doublepost]
If I had to place a bet today, I'd say Apple will buy Time Warner which is likely going to be for sale this year. Apple already expressing their interest in Time Warner Cable assets which are mostly Time Warner holdings, is a pretty clear indicator about how this could all come together for Apple. Murdock attempted to buy the studio last year in order to get CNN, with little or no interest in the film/TV division. Apple could sell off CNN, among other assets which don't suit their needs. They don't even have to roll the studio into Apple.

Better Apple than a direct cable competitor, if Apple thinks this sort of thing is going to really pay off...

But it's fun being in the peanut gallery wondering what the big gamblers are going to do with their fancy pieces of paper in this real life mirroring of the old board game "Monopoly"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: andrewofanderso
I love Apple BUT...unfortunately the man behind the magic tragically died and took the magic with him. Yet, again Apple is behind the industry trend, however, I believe this is extremely compelling to the big 6. Countless subscribers are cutting the cord every day and they know it. Meanwhile, Apple has been working for years to crack a deal with these networks to no avail. This is definitely a compelling way to give the big networks new life in an audience inevitably moving to streamed content. Exclusive originals are great and all but, look people, if Apple can't make a deal with these guys that includes sports in one way or another it will be just another streaming service and that's not the Apple we all know. We are eagerly looking for Apple to, once again, set the trend in industry standards in a meaningful way other than making new cords we all NEED before they are even on the shelves. In a deal like this, the Apple will float on turf (sports) but will sink in mediocrity. If you're going to do it, get it right Apple.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that your severely underestimating the scale, money, and resources that go into producing television. What you're suggesting would be much more suitable for indie work.

Well, the same could have been said about developing "programs", as they were called back in the day. To officially buy them I'd physically go to Best Buy and the starting price was about $50 for a basic music management tool.

I think it would end up just like gaming industry. There are billions of people that play games but most of them do so on their smartphone. Yet, the comparatively "niche" console gaming industry is doing as well as ever.

Also, doing this should not mean that they abandon the way they been doing things, but just add the option for indie developers and musicians to deal with iTunes directly, and if big studios want to take the same route too eventually, than they are more than welcome to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak
If by crushing you mean usurping, then yeah. Watch what you wish for, new boss same as the old boss and all that. Content is king.


Bingo! I can't believe all these fools who think Apple getting involved is going to make things better or save them money. Apple has always charged a premium for services/content. Like you said, new boss same as the old boss....except the new boss will likely take a bigger cut.

And some idiots are actually suggesting Apple buy HBO or Netflix. Like Apple wouldn't demand a fatter margin than what those two companies are pulling right now.

When it comes to this topic it seems like people let their affinity for Apple and hatred of cable/satellite companies cloud their ability to think of what's best for them as a consumer.

The current model isn't perfect. But Apple hasn't proposed anything that seems like a viable alternative...and until they do, I remain skeptical that any change is going to improve things for me as a consumer.
 
Bingo! I can't believe all these fools who think Apple getting involved is going to make things better or save them money. Apple has always charged a premium for services/content. Like you said, new boss same as the old boss....except the new boss will likely take a bigger cut.

And some idiots are actually suggesting Apple buy HBO or Netflix. Like Apple wouldn't demand a fatter margin than what those two companies are pulling right now.

When it comes to this topic it seems like people let their affinity for Apple and hatred of cable/satellite companies cloud their ability to think of what's best for them as a consumer.

The current model isn't perfect. But Apple hasn't proposed anything that seems like a viable alternative...and until they do, I remain skeptical that any change is going to improve things for me as a consumer.


Well said. I totally agree. Apple has to bring something new to the table that will CHANGE the way we view content and that has to be geared toward what we want and that's specifically paying for what we want to watch when we want to watch it...AD FREE. I want to be free from paying for and sorting through crap I don't want to watch. Ultimately that means offering a service that isn't tied to networks with contract deals that bundle crap along with the cream. I'd be more than willing to pay for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak
I'd only be interested if Apple allows me to stream their exclusive content to devices other than an Apple TV. I don't really see that happening.
 
Here's the thing. Apple now has over 1 billion active devices. I'm not sure how many active iTunes accounts that is but its for sure hundreds of millions. It makes sense for Apple to be thinking how they can monetize this user base (and hopefully keep them as Apple customers), especially if hardware upgrade cycles are getting longer. I might not be buying Apple devices as often but I'm still giving them money for other things like Apple Music, subscription TV service, etc. and I'm sure Wall Street would like it because it's a more predictable revenue stream. Honestly I'd love it if Apple turned their devices into a subscription service similar to the iPhone upgrade program. I'd totally pay a monthly fee to "rent" my devices (with the option to own outright) and get a new one every year or two.

I have always enjoyed your commentary on this forum.We have certainly and will continue to see the change in the Apple we knew as Steve.
I tried Apple Music and personally found it to be a mess and now they have eliminated iTunes Radio just to force AM subscriptions. Now I know there is an argument about free, but the changes, to me, just reek of a money grab.
I'm willing to give up $$ for new and better hardware for my computing needs, however I feel their services, still are very lacking
I, for one, watch very little 'TV', as I find better uses for my time and entertainment. So, at this point, have not upgraded ATV and am not interested in their concept that clones Amazon, Netflix, etc. They now become a 'ME, too company. Not the Apple I am using to seeing.
I feel that Apple was forced to go to the iPhone upgrade system due to the cessation of carrier subsidies, and I'm not sure when I will reach a point and just stop with the current hardware I have.
Your comment about Wall Street may be correct as Apple tries to be in a more favorable light to appease the shareholders...and that's what it comes down to...stock price...
 
Throw enough stuff at the wall, something has got to stick.

Isn't that supposed to be one of the reasons oft-quoted to disparage Google?

There seems to be some folks who don't understand/realise how new TV series come to fruition, or how expensive they are to make. Take a TV show that's relatively cheap, say something like a cop show. To make a single "hour"* of scripted drama like this costs a fair few millions of dollars. It's not a case of sticking a few actors in front of a camera and hoping the best. You have lots of behind camera departments that cost money that are needed to make something semi-watchable. There's camera personnel, riggers, costuming, electricians, props, scenery, effects(both physical and CGI), editing, sound, music, just to name a few. These people don't work for free. Nor do the actors. For a more complex show with multiple locations, more complex requirements, such as Game of Thrones, and you're well into the tens of millions required before you even shoot the first scene.

Content makers don't want to gamble many tens of millions of dollars/pounds creating a whole series of a show upfront, without at least a fairly good chance of making their money back. They *may* sometimes make a pilot episode to try to sell the show, but even that's not true all the time. The show concept or pilot then gets offered to various Delivery Providers (such as Broadcasters like BBC, CBS, NBC, ITV, Fox, or streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, etc), who offer to buy the series so it can be made. There is also the fact that Content makers will be selling the content into multiple markets at the same time (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc).The Delivery Providers (in the case of the Broadcasters) do this generally based on the back of the fact that they know that they can sell advertising to various market segments around such programming, so that they make the money back.

Even if a show is a flop, they have already sold the advertising space, so the show production has been paid for. If a show is taken off air, you usually don't get an immediate replacement by a brand new show because it takes time to make a new replacement show. There are cases where mid-season replacement shows are prepped ahead of the January timeframe, where a show that was on the cusp of being commissioned at the start of the season is offered a half-season in place of a show that's performed poorly. A classic case in point is Buffy the Vampire Slayer...

Now imagine this new scheme where Delivery Providers are cut out of the loop.Content providers will not fund a multi-million pound/dollar full series production on their own without it being already sold to someone. So, someone has to pay the money upfront to make this show. That money has to come from somewhere, so the new Distribution "channel" has to price delivery of that show based on at least breaking even. If it's a service that isn't supported by advertising, that per show/episode cost to the end user (us) goes up even further. Even the almighty Apple is not a fortune teller. They can't tell how popular some new show may be, so they will err on the side of caution in the pricing the show to users. Suddenly you're finding that your price in this new streaming "utopia" for that TV show you like is a couple of dollars/pounds *per episode*. Say you like four or five shows, a series of 22 episodes, and now you're paying a lot more for a lot less.....

* It's not really an hour, of course. It's actually 44 to 46 minutes to allow for the advertising slots on broadcast TV
 
  • Like
Reactions: mantan
I would prefer if Apple just killed the Apple TV altogether. Personally, "exclusive" and "original" programming is a turn off. It's one of the reasons my wife and I might be canceling Netflix soon. I don't care for their original content and thats all they seem to push now instead of trying to get rights to stream good movies and tv shows.

Seriously? I absolutely ADORE Netflix for their original programming. The only company making same quality originals in HBO, and if Apple buys out TW that would be a serious combination.

And i'm quite shocked. To be frank, you are the first person I've heard say they don't enjoy getting new original content and only wanting old stuff lol.
 
I don't feel like the content is the problem, it's just a wrench paying for every show on iTunes.

If they had an Apple Music like service for iTunes TV shows that'd keep me pretty happy.
 
It makes sense, if they can't get deals with networks like they hoped, I guess.

Just seems like Apple is jumping on a lot of bandwagons now. iPhone and MacBook sizes to match competitors, Apple Watch was late to the smart watch party, iPad Pro clearly competing against the existing Surface Pro, Apple Car Vs Tesla... now they're going to go against Netflix and Amazon. I get it. I just hope we see new products that people who didn't think they want or need, love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak and nt5672
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.