If they are going to do this - then AppleTV and this service can't be a "hobby." They need to go all in - maybe even spinning off this service as a new company and staffing/financing it accordingly. It also will need to be cross-platform. I don't think making it exclusive to AppleTV or iProducts is the right strategy. My .02
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 Secretly Pursuing Deep Push Into Original Television Programming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In a longer piece covering the streaming television and video ambitions of Apple, Alibaba, Facebook, and Google, Fast Company suggests Apple is covertly pursuing original television programming deals that would establish it as a major player in the entertainment industry.
Apple is said to be seeking deals with "triple A-list" talent to create a full roster of shows to put it on par with Netflix and Amazon, both of which have successfully launched popular original television shows like House of Cards, Jessica Jones, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Sources that spoke to Fast Company say Apple is aiming to run several major shows at once, perhaps as part of a major launch.
At last year's Sundance Film Festival, Apple created an iTunes Lounge where it hosted private invitation-only events for film makers, producers, and other talent. At the event, described as sleek and understated, attendees said Apple was "definitely talking to the talent." As has been previously rumored, Apple execs also traveled to Los Angeles to hear ideas for original television shows, with Apple's original programming efforts being led by Robert Kondrk, vice president of iTunes Content.Given Apple's positive reputation among creators, Apple has the draw to attract quality talent and the cash reserves to fund high ticket shows. Content creators are said to be "so excited" about the possibility of working with Apple that people are "throwing [ideas] against the wall with them, to every extent possible."
According to five sources who spoke to Fast Company, however, Apple is "disorganized" and "hasn't presented a coherent strategy" for its television plans. The company is reportedly taking a "two-lane" approach to original television programming, producing a series of short films, documentaries, and music videos to promote Apple music while simultaneously developing full Netflix-style original programming.
Apple already has two known television projects in the works. The first, which has not yet been officially announced, is said to be an Apple Music-related project called Vital Signs, which is a dark semi-autobiographical drama starring Beats co-founder and Apple executive Dr. Dre. The second, which was announced in March, is a non-scripted television show that will "spotlight the app economy." Apple is working with Will.i.am, Ben Silverman, and Howard T. Owens on the series.
Alongside the announcement of the the App Store television series, iTunes chief Eddy Cue cautioned the show is not a signal Apple is delving deeper into original television and streaming video, despite rumors to the contrary.
"This doesn't mean that we are going into a huge amount of movie production or TV production or anything like that," Cue said at the time, but he did say Apple would explore similar exclusive projects. Hollywood sources told Fast Company that Apple is approaching its television ambitions with caution and that Cue's statement is "merely tamping down expectations."
Article Link: Apple Secretly Pursuing Deep Push Into Original Television Programming
Forget daft cars, this is where Apple should be expanding. All TV content is total pants and Apple's cash could herald a renaissance of good taste. Especially if they are forced to edit it on Mac Minis then they would see the 4 core was a freaking fabulous idea !!!!
The Man in the High Castle came from triple A-list source material...it was based on a great book by an important author. It didn't just materialize because Amazon.
Last edited:
If their so exited how come the long delay ?
i find it more interesting that companies like Netflix can secure better deals,, than Apple can...
If Netflix can easily get these, why can't Apple ? Although still business and all, but it seems Aples not looking in the right direction others are..
i find it more interesting that companies like Netflix can secure better deals,, than Apple can...
If Netflix can easily get these, why can't Apple ? Although still business and all, but it seems Aples not looking in the right direction others are..
How so? Apple has sold content for a very long time. This is just a different type of content.
Selling and producing are two different things. I don't agree with the OP here - but there is a difference.
Apple's massive ego, their narcissistic desires have trapped the company in an endless loop of attention seeking. Having failed to create anything to rival other social media sites, Apple clings to their fantasy of dominating TV. Failing in that arena to date is the bitter pill not even billions of dollars can save them from.
Gotta waste that giant pile of money somehow. Personally, I'd use it to update the desktop line more often, but that's just me.
Well, you know that shows and movies are a business, don't you? Maybe you heard about some movies making quite a nice fortune.. and some TV dramas too.. probably you never heard. Just turn on TV and watch any hit movie or series.
[doublepost=1461080715][/doublepost]
Well, there is no difference. You just sell something which happens to be made by guys in next cubicle.. in same office. The key is making something that sells and Apple is good in that. They can get more than 30% on that because its their own stuff. However, if it happens to be better than Straight out of Compton or Breaking bad, why not?
Risk/reward is different. 30% of almost pure profit of something you have no stake in is one thing....
Hey you're back with more good stuff! This is a thread about "original content", something that this post definitely is not.
Two articles for the less informed about production vs distribution. They aren't the most recent - but should give a good flavor
http://variety.com/2013/digital/new...discloses-netflix-series-spending-1200006100/
http://bgr.com/2015/09/04/apple-vs-netflix-cost-original-tv-production/
http://variety.com/2013/digital/new...discloses-netflix-series-spending-1200006100/
http://bgr.com/2015/09/04/apple-vs-netflix-cost-original-tv-production/
"...Apple is said to be seeking deals with "triple A-list" talent to create a full roster of shows to put it on par with Netflix and Amazon, both of which have successfully launched popular original television shows..."
Took 'em long enough. I recommended this five years ago. The next stage is Apple becoming an ISP. (I also predicted that five years ago.) Why? If you don't control both the content and the means of delivery, you lose to those who do.
Took 'em long enough. I recommended this five years ago. The next stage is Apple becoming an ISP. (I also predicted that five years ago.) Why? If you don't control both the content and the means of delivery, you lose to those who do.
Original content is great, but Apple has to figure out a way to make it available across other platforms, if it's to be successful.
After years of using Apple TVs, I recently decided to test the major available platforms and settled on Roku.
Roku has always been better as far as content goes, but their UI used to be so ugly that it was unusable. The current Roku UI version is not as well-designed as Apple TV's or Nexus TV's, but it is at least not offensive. And it's much better than Fire TV's UI mess.
Roku allows me to combine all of my streaming sources and is the only platform to feature both Netflix, HBO Go and Amazon Prime. It also has a great Put.io channel, almost on par with Fetch for iOS, which is the best put.io app on any platform.
Roku's voice search is kind of bleh, but at least it covers many of the top channels, instead of limiting you to the proprietary content Apple, Google and Amazon are pushing, which makes them almost useless, IMO.
After years of using Apple TVs, I recently decided to test the major available platforms and settled on Roku.
Roku has always been better as far as content goes, but their UI used to be so ugly that it was unusable. The current Roku UI version is not as well-designed as Apple TV's or Nexus TV's, but it is at least not offensive. And it's much better than Fire TV's UI mess.
Roku allows me to combine all of my streaming sources and is the only platform to feature both Netflix, HBO Go and Amazon Prime. It also has a great Put.io channel, almost on par with Fetch for iOS, which is the best put.io app on any platform.
Roku's voice search is kind of bleh, but at least it covers many of the top channels, instead of limiting you to the proprietary content Apple, Google and Amazon are pushing, which makes them almost useless, IMO.
First, when they sell someone's content, they get 30% cut as a distributor. Assuming the thing sells. Which it mostly does and it is not Apple's business.
Second, when they will sell their own content, assuming similar prices, their margin will be HIGHER than 30%. Because they absorb some costs and can eliminate excessive margin on produce. They still will get 30% even if discount their own production (as distributors).
Finally, about the content that sells. Thats why you go to A-list to create content that sells, like Swift's iTunes exclusive album. It is not made by Apple, but Apple could produce such albums in future, its not big deal and with hundreds of millions or so iTunes accounts, plus deals to Amazon, Netflix, HBO, it could easily recuperate initial outlays of 5 billions. They even could tie it to its hardware, like iPod-exclusive Beatles album or something like that.
5 billions is a huge money for ALL Hollywood studios even combined (most of them will struggle to produce one megahit, costing up to 200 million movie in a year), but 5 billions is a peanuts for Apple. it is just like 2.5% if their idle CASH sitting somewhere in Ireland and earning probably around 5% in interest only. Using only half of interest revenue from that cash holdings Apple could produce 25 MEGAHITS a year if it wanted. Or more. But probably they will prefer cheaper TV series, in which case they could produce up to 100 TV shows annually each costing 50 million dollars and having 10 episodes each and still be in black, cause Apple employs best writers, directors, other A list creators. And with good effort those megahits would have return of around 100% (like spending about 200 million on Harry Potter movie, spend another 100 million on ads, earn about 500 billion (even more for HP movies), be in black and still get profit of around 100-200 million dollars.
With profit on megahits, you can easily subsidize up to 20 family movies, kids movies which cost far less and don't bring much revenue, and 2-3 flops, when needed. In 3 years, Apple could produce more entertainment streams than Hollywood and Bollywood combined. That could fill 5-10 TV channels running almost only Apple's shows of highest quality.
And it all could be iTunes/AppleTV exclusive.
I don't disagree with what you wrote. Why you felt the need to spell it out to me, who already knew the above and/or could run through the scenario myself is a mystery. All you did was support my comment which was that producing content is different than simply reselling it.
Because what shirt you wear doesn't impact what you can do?
[doublepost=1461098175][/doublepost]
Similar things could probably said about who would need a show about "Girls" or a 90's show about basically nothing a just a life of some guy and his friends.
sort of the 'you won't play ball with me, so I'll make my own ball' approach.
Apple has cash to burn, so yeah they could do it.
It won't make a dent in the current model and will just cost us more as consumers. But it'll give Apple another revenue stream, which was their intent all along....not to 'revolutionize television.'
That's all well and good, but you cannot honestly say that Apple is increasingly LESS interested/innovative/customer focused, when it comes to their computer line?
You know, those old annoying things that make all the content for their other devices? Those content providers are getting amazingly frustrated with being forced to pay top dollar for really old components, being bilked for 3-5 times the cost of RAM/storage/etc.... on these old component filled devices. Each "upgrade" is downgrade with components lagging behind the competition, inability to self service the devices, and outright removal of once provided capabilities(quad in the mini).
An don't even get me started with the lack of focus on OS X in recent years.
Again - Where do the apps come from for all these other, Apple referred, devices? Talk about slapping the hand that feeds you.
I say this a healthy market expansion. Then there is a shake down, the suppliers cater to the market needs or they die.
Yeah, I know, it's an annoyingly slow and painful process though. Works for me though if it breaks the cable company monopoly.
The distributors have it made. The networks are the ones driving and thriving through the monopoly. Cable/satellite just gives them a distribution vehicle and a pinata for public opinion. Most of your cable bill is driven by spiraling networking fees. Most of the bundles are from networks that want the gravy of guaranteed subscription fees. Yeah cable/satellite charge a 'big' amount for equipment and fees. But that's pretty much the equivalent to complaining about the cost of movie concessions. They have to get paid somewhere....
Customer service can be improved, no question.
But I still fail to see where Apple getting involved is improving TV. Just more fragmentation and potentially an extra bill or different middle man.
Every cable television exec worth anything sees the handwriting on the wall. Most in the business is waiting for a "tipping point" where cable cutters outnumber the subscriber base. That is expected in the next two to four years.
Once that happens, it becomes a solvent business decision to step back from signing channels for bundling. Then we will see something like an a la cart selection with a cable tv company turning into a video style search engine of "local offerings" connected to user defined subscription packages. Then the cable tv company gets a cut of advertising or user subscription per channel in the local network. There is very big money for those who makes a solvent business model for all.
When that happens, there will be a generational turnover of management and the death of bundled cable TV as we know it. Many view this as a gradual migration with no watershed events expected. Then again, predicting tech market changes makes horse betting look like a safe career.