Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Music's Original TV Plans Now Include Potential Shows and Videos From J.J. Abrams and R. Kelly
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And people wonder why someone would get something like nvidia shield and install Kodi. I got so fed up with the limitations of my Apple TV, Apple Music, I moved to the kodi.... fregmentation and greed!
You're assuming any of this stuff is going to be any good. Can't see Planet of the Apps and Carpool Karaoke being up there with House of Cards and Game of Thrones to be honest. Its all going to be MTV esque reality based garbage.
GOT costs $8-10 million per episode to produce that would be a lot of money to throw around as a value add.
The truth is this is a "me too" move to compete with Spotify who have been producing their own original video content since early last year.
Don't give two farts about revenue. How much profit?
I agree that the content doesn't sound very appealing to me either, but I don't get to speak for the mass consumer, so what do I know?
Maybe it will be another iPhone 7 moment where the internet lost its collective **** over the removal of the headphone jack and Apple still went on to sell a ton of iPhones.
Best I could find was about $18 of hardware in a $200 headphone.
https://www.google.com.sg/amp/www.c...zes-cheap-hardware-for-luxurious-profits/amp/
You're conflating two separate issues (the value in the purchase of Beats and what Apple Music is) as if your singular criticism is valid for both. Imo, they are not. They have to be addressed separately.
Apple Music: whether it's awesome or not, is strictly an opinion. It success as a subscription service hints at a lot of people liking it. It's intentional Hip Hop flavor seems to be popular with the majority of it's fans, lending to it's aforementioned success. One thing Apple has been good at it identifying the majority and targeting it aggressively while dragging the minority along, sometimes kicking and screaming - but they come along anyway.
I don't even use Apple Music (Google Play Music + Youtube Red ftw) but it's not hard to recognize it's success - which came phenomenally quick. A lot of that is the result of their focus on understanding who to market to for the most bang for the buck.Beats purchase: $3B for a company that was (at the time) generating $1B in revenues. An acquisition that could pay for itself, conservatively, in 4 years - through headphone sales alone. Regardless of one's opinion of the quality of Beats construction/sound from a business perspective there was no better headphone company to buy. Ridiculous sales, margin, and profit. What other company had the combination of a stupidly profitable product line along with a fully functional streaming service? Got the foundation for Apple Music. Instantly accelerating the timeline for the debut of Apple streaming music service. Add in the revenue from Apple Music and the Beats acquisition could pay for itself even sooner. I think this is what @Abazigal was referencing.
No they didn't need a headphone brand. The headphones were the icing on the cake. They needed the industry connections and the streaming service. But who in their right mind would turn down super easy "hand-over-fist" profit? Not many. Least of all a company that is known for hand-over-fist profit making.
I agree wholeheartedly Apple's entertainment ideas thus far are complete and utter crap. Well, you didn't actually say that but to me, everything from CP Karaoke, Planet of the Apps, R Kelly (mouth vomit), Puffy Combs, etc. have been complete and utter crap ideas. Apple now has some of the industry connections they desired. What they've done with them so far has been underwhelming. That is a separate issue altogether.
Last edited:
It is smart for companies to try and diversify and develop multiple revenue streams.
Here the problem is that from all appearances Apple is pretty much clueless in the "original content" field. And the folks they have chosen to hire seem clueless as well. And some seem to be total low-life's as well.
Here the problem is that from all appearances Apple is pretty much clueless in the "original content" field. And the folks they have chosen to hire seem clueless as well. And some seem to be total low-life's as well.
Yeah, but that's just something that geeks know about. People my parent's age look at this cluster and go "lol wut" and then call their kids to try to figure things out. People my grandparents age look at this and go "I don't understand anything being said right now, please don't make me think about this any more."
It appears in the industry, sometimes you need to work with the devil to get what you want!
Cord cutting getting pricier. To get all the original content, rather than pay for cable, one now needs to pay for:
Amazon
Netflix
Hulu Plus
HBO
Showtime
Apple Music
Some kind of streaming TV
Unbundled unlimited internet access (higher price)
And all those are set to rise in cost as the companies actually decide to make money.
Pretty much making the required costs over $100 a month (only counting the undbundled premium for internet, not base price)
And of course, now that some shows are exclusive to those new media sources, can't get them on cable now, which really just made cable less valuable.
In other words, "cord cutters" will not save a thin dime going forward, but like all disruptive practices, they made this cost more for everyone else
Amazon
Netflix
Hulu Plus
HBO
Showtime
Apple Music
Some kind of streaming TV
Unbundled unlimited internet access (higher price)
And all those are set to rise in cost as the companies actually decide to make money.
Pretty much making the required costs over $100 a month (only counting the undbundled premium for internet, not base price)
And of course, now that some shows are exclusive to those new media sources, can't get them on cable now, which really just made cable less valuable.
In other words, "cord cutters" will not save a thin dime going forward, but like all disruptive practices, they made this cost more for everyone else
Who needs to buy Disney when you've got 230 billion in the bank and Jony Ive ready to courageously direct the next biggest blockbuster produced by JJ Abramamas
Why are you alleging that he's a clown?
[doublepost=1493315183][/doublepost]
That makes "sense", but it's a boring name and would be bad branding.
This is assuming that every service is purchased, and kept year round like cable.
Unlike cable, most of these services can be easily unsubscribed, and then re-subscribed every couple months.
For example, I love GoT on HBO. The seasons only last for a few months, so I can get it at the beginning of the season, watch it and catch up on other HBO content, cancel it at the end of the season.
Of course, if you need to watch all the original content the second it comes out, then yes, it could be pricey.
I am surprised by how Apple spreads out responsibility. It seems like people get stretched very thin, without dedicated champions for important initiatives. Maybe there's a logic to it I don't see, but it has always struck me as odd, and potentially limiting.
You're conflating two separate issues (the value in the purchase of Beats and what Apple Music is) as if your singular criticism is valid for both. Imo, they are not. They have to be addressed separately.
Apple Music: whether it's awesome or not, is strictly an opinion. It success as a subscription service hints at a lot of people liking it. It's intentional Hip Hop flavor seems to be popular with the majority of it's fans, lending to it's aforementioned success. One thing Apple has been good at it identifying the majority and targeting it aggressively while dragging the minority along, sometimes kicking and screaming - but they come along anyway.
Beats purchase: $3B for a company that was (at the time) generating $1B in revenues. An acquisition that could pay for itself, conservatively, in 4 years - through headphone sales alone. Regardless of one's opinion of the quality of Beats construction/sound from a business perspective there was no better headphone company to buy. Ridiculous sales, margin, and profit. What other company had the combination of a stupidly profitable product line along with a fully functional streaming service? Got the foundation for Apple Music. Instantly accelerating the timeline for the debut of Apple streaming music service. Add in the revenue from Apple Music and the Beats acquisition could pay for itself even sooner. I think this is what @Abazigal was referencing.
No they didn't need a headphone brand. The headphones were the icing on the cake. They needed the industry connections and the streaming service. But who in their right mind would turn down super easy "hand-over-fist" profit? Not many. Least of all a company that is known for hand-over-fist profit making.
I agree wholeheartedly Apple's entertainment ideas thus far are complete and utter crap. Well, you didn't actually say that but to me, everything from CP Karaoke, Planet of the Apps, R Kelly (mouth vomit), Puffy Combs, etc. have been complete and utter crap ideas. Apple now has some of the industry connections they desired. What they've done with them so far has been underwhelming. That is a separate issue altogether.
$1B revenue does not mean a company pays for itself in 3 years. Unless you spend based on your revenue/ wage....which I am sure you do not, if you get my drift.
I completely understand why apple bought Beats, it was not about the hardware. Where I was heading was that Beats were not making 1B in profit from headphones sales.....
When you want access to these tools running Beats, with the intention of hitting the ground running and setting up a streaming service with contacts to the industry, yup Beats is your only choice for an established company.
If we are talking about apple sticking to thier strengths, hardware, that is up market and marked up, BOSE. A partnership between those two would see Apple high end Audio gear and TV hitting the ground running. Apple though went audio and dumped thier TV plans, whatever they were that Jobs made reference to.
What apple did was very smart from $$$ pov, from a brand reputation and all these tools that are not associated with Apple.....well lets see how it plays out...only a matter of time before they end up in the press for the wrong reasons...
Anyway, my point is that No one sells a company for 3 Billion that is making 1 billion profit per year, Revenue is very different.
And frankly I don't mind Current beats headphones, it was an absolute joke what the first generation was, though the current ones are quite good. To be honest they are perfect for apple, overpriced for okay performance.
Strongly disagree. Not that hip-hop is huge and foundational for a generation, but that Apple should choose to make it such a lopsided focus. Music is nothing if not personal, and digital distribution makes it infinitely customizable. And with older generations behaving much differently than in the past, consuming much more media and being much more culturally active, it's a huge mistake to ignore non-youth. I think it's a mistake for Apple to focus on hip-hop at the expense of other music genres and fanbases. I'd love to see a Beats 2 radio station with a college/alternative focus, and perhaps other stations as well. And make it clear to ALL music fans that Apple has smart, experienced curators in ALL genres and is the one source for all true music fans.
A guy can dream.
I'm thoroughly confused. It seems most of what you've written puts us in agreement. My confusion is with the bolded portion of your comment. Did I not explicitly state $1B in revenue? I don't think I implied profit anywhere in my comment. Nor did I imply a 1:1 relationship between $3B cost and $1B revenue (that would have been paid for in 3 years at $1B a year not 4 years). More to your original point - which was a question:
My questionable math aside, I think I did an okay job of explaining how that $3B is paying for itself. Would 4.5 to 6 years make my math more palatable?
Did they just call R. Kelly a rapper? How many people on this site think R. Kelly is a rapper? Just by show of hands...maybe this site doesn't have the demographics I thought it did lol.
I'm thoroughly confused. It seems most of what you've written puts us in agreement. My confusion is with the bolded portion of your comment. Did I not explicitly state $1B in revenue? I don't think I implied profit anywhere in my comment. Nor did I imply a 1:1 relationship between $3B cost and $1B revenue (that would have been paid for in 3 years at $1B a year not 4 years). More to your original point - which was a question:
My questionable math aside, I think I did an okay job of explaining how that $3B is paying for itself. Would 4.5 to 6 years make my math more palatable?
Nope you are right. Basics is that the Beats deal makes perfect sense, I'm just being difficult cause I cant stand the the Beats/apple merger from a culture / image point of view. I got old .... Apple sold out to young and hip.... meh
. Everything I hated about BBC radio one, became Apple Music .. but worse....[doublepost=1493324307][/doublepost]
A quick google... cause I've never heard of him.... turns out he is a turd. Tim must so proud.... guess its diverse ....
Last edited: