Well, to be fair, the Apple One bundle makes it hard to determine just how many people would actually subscribe to a particular service on its own, rather it just "being there" as part of the overall package. I admit that I haven't opened Apple Arcade in ages.
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 'Ready to Spend Billions' on Live Sports Content Over Next Four Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple should start their own football league, made up of former and recently let go developers. Steve Wozniak could be a coach.
and it's only $5 month. I think they provide quality content for that price.
Exactly. 20 years ago people were complaining about Apple getting into music with the iPod and iTunes. It's through diversification that Apple is still relevant today.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The point wasn't necessarily for Apple to own James Bond movies, etc. The point was that there has been consistent rumors of Apple potentially buying content produced by others- in the can or live sports. When all is said and done, the later stories imply that Apple didn't even bid.
But personally, I do think buying a bunch of "in the can" content would help the paid subscription objectives of AppleTV+. If Apple doesn't want to own studios, theme parks, etc, they could buy the whole and then sell off the parts they don't want. What is the non-fan take of AppleTV: generally very positive on the original content but far too little content to make the subscription worth keeping. Jump in, binge, jump out again. Meanwhile, streamers with deep libraries seem to do a better job of retaining subscribers... presumably because there is always something to watch beyond the 1 or 2 brand new things rolled out each month.
And yes, "free" content in the streaming service may cut into revenue for the same content for sale in the store. Then again, is it "free" if you are paying an ongoing subscription for it? And would you rather make something vs. seeing revenue that would be yours subscribing to have "free" access to Amazon Prime or Netflix or Disney+, etc?
However, back to point: Apple has not shown much (any?) interest at all in acquiring NFL Sunday Ticket previously or NFL Thursday Night football more recently. What's different now? Why is this time different?
Last edited:
Well, I guess another purpose of the Apple One bundle is to help reduce churn. Hard to turn it off when your iCloud storage is tied to it as well.
As for why now, if it is indeed tied to their rumoured AR / VR hardware, maybe it’s a sign that said product is getting ready for prime time soon?
Isn’t the real issue with this that it’s not Sunday night ticket. It’s called nfl Sunday ticket.
Amazes me how people think Apple can’t afford to spend money on serval things at once and one doesn’t effect the other. Apple can and should spend on Siri at the same time invest in other areas
DTV destroyed Sunday Ticket and sent me elsewhere.
I used Sunday Ticket to watch whatever games I wanted to on Sunday, good. Then I wanted to watch the short-cuts later. Well, DTV made them ONLY available Tue-Thu and ONLY on their app. I couldn't sit back on my TV and watch the games Saturday morning like I used to.
Sunday Ticket cost $300-$400 a year - in addition to DirectTV service. I found that the NFL Game Pass only costs $99 and gives me access to the shortcuts whenever I want back to 2009. Such a better deal.
The RedZone is a $5 addition. If I don't like the local games, I now watch the RedZone Channel all day and see every game. Then go back and watch the ones I want in full.
DTV's high costs and restrictions on Sunday Ticket forced me to leave them for better services. I didn't just get rid of Sunday Ticket, I got rid of DirecTV completely. If they wouldn't have done that crap, I might still be with them.
I'm American and I don't know anyone who gives a ****. It's, at best, something to put on the TV for specific noise and maybe a good concert. Usually not though. This reeks of a boardroom move to me, not the decision of a company that has a proper direction to go in.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. That would be HUGE.
Won't they make an exception if you live in an apartment building where it's impossible for you to mount a dish?
I was going to say she’s actually much better on the HomePod. She will read articles to you from top hit websites (through apple’s search engine). I’ve been pleasantly surprised
No idea why this phrase is still ignorantly brought up. A football is called a football because the ball is a foot long. Soccer wasn't even a term invented by the Americans, the British coined the term soccer as an abbreviation from its original name "Association Football". American football was called Gridiron Football and later changed to American football after adopting its own rules.
The only reason the British called soccer "football" is to match the other European languages that call it Futbol etc.
She WAS much better, as of HomePod 15 shes useless. I ask "Whats the weather like today?" And her only dumb response is "Weather for where?" So each time now I have to specify EXACTLY where.
Also we were promised much more Siri functions without internet. I cant even ask her anything without THERE ARE CURRENTLY ISSUES WITH THE WIFI PLEASE OPEN THE HOME APP. 99% of the time I have to do a system reset if I move the HomePod outside of the house. Even basic function like playing rain sounds for some reason requires wifi.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I have long thought the "killer app" for any of the goggles options was virtual courtside seats: virtually sit in the sometimes $5K-$50K seats for only $XXX: sports, concerts, etc.
I hope they keep it as a separate add-on for users interested in sports instead of bundling it with the core service and increasing the price for everyone, the way cable companies do.
If this goes through I’ll cancel my Apple One subscription for the same reason I don’t pay for cable. I refuse to subsidize professional sports.
Better late than never, however, YouTube TV is the Benchmark that they'll be competing against, & except for the $65/month cost, it's a winner !
My $0.02, Apple will the TV commercial dead time to promote their products, & that was the deciding factor for them to jump in !
My $0.02, Apple will the TV commercial dead time to promote their products, & that was the deciding factor for them to jump in !
An foray into live sport programming by Apple HAS to include NFL content.
First off, anything less will make Apple look like an "almost" or second rate, particularly in North America.
"Oh, sure. Apple has soccer. Well, BFD. No NFL though!".
It would be too much of a black spot for them. No other sport is more of a draw in the US. Nothing. This includes across all platforms, in merchandise, in advertising, anything. The NFL is a money machine that permeates US culture like nothing else. To eschew the NFL would be seen as half baked.
So, anything Apple does HAS to include some sort of NFL component. Mind you, I'm not a huge fan of it (I watch the home team if it's on, but my wife loves the crap out of it. I'm a hockey fan. Go Flyers), and I could take or leave it, but it IS the elephant in the room for the US market.
Now, regardless of what you think, the US does pretty much drive popular culture and entertainment worldwide. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing is irrelevant. Apple is a US centric (all though multinational) company. So Apple's focus is DE FACTO on US content. People aren't lining up for the latest Russian blockbuster movie, or to watch baseball out of Japan. It just is what it is.
So, the focus is on the US, and US sport is dominated by? The NFL. Just no bones about it. It's where the money is. Which is the goal, to make money.
I can see Apple doing regional deals to provide programming in other large countries. Soccer in Europe and South America, Cricket in India. NBA in China would be a good one too. Some of these markets have little or no interest in US football.
But anything Apple puts out in North America that doesn't include some sort of NFL content has that Stephen Baldwin, Pauley Shore "B List" feel to it.
Apple does NOT want that B list feel associated with their product.
First off, anything less will make Apple look like an "almost" or second rate, particularly in North America.
"Oh, sure. Apple has soccer. Well, BFD. No NFL though!".
It would be too much of a black spot for them. No other sport is more of a draw in the US. Nothing. This includes across all platforms, in merchandise, in advertising, anything. The NFL is a money machine that permeates US culture like nothing else. To eschew the NFL would be seen as half baked.
So, anything Apple does HAS to include some sort of NFL component. Mind you, I'm not a huge fan of it (I watch the home team if it's on, but my wife loves the crap out of it. I'm a hockey fan. Go Flyers), and I could take or leave it, but it IS the elephant in the room for the US market.
Now, regardless of what you think, the US does pretty much drive popular culture and entertainment worldwide. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing is irrelevant. Apple is a US centric (all though multinational) company. So Apple's focus is DE FACTO on US content. People aren't lining up for the latest Russian blockbuster movie, or to watch baseball out of Japan. It just is what it is.
So, the focus is on the US, and US sport is dominated by? The NFL. Just no bones about it. It's where the money is. Which is the goal, to make money.
I can see Apple doing regional deals to provide programming in other large countries. Soccer in Europe and South America, Cricket in India. NBA in China would be a good one too. Some of these markets have little or no interest in US football.
But anything Apple puts out in North America that doesn't include some sort of NFL content has that Stephen Baldwin, Pauley Shore "B List" feel to it.
Apple does NOT want that B list feel associated with their product.
This.
Just how they decided to spend billions on Beats before releasing AirPods And Apple Music.