Apple's 'Hard-Nosed' Negotiating Tactics Leading to Trouble in Television Market

[kingtj]

Times are changing and "dressing down" is considered perfectly acceptable in many tech industries (especially successful ones that already have respect).

(I recently heard a story about a guy who was sent to a job interview at a California tech company by his recruiter and instructed to "Be sure to wear a suit and tie!" He did, and wound up sitting in the waiting area for almost an hour. He saw a few people come and go who briefly looked at him but didn't introduce themselves before walking off again. He finally asked the receptionist if there was something wrong, because he was sure he had an interview scheduled at that time. It turns out, one of the people who passed by and looked right at him a couple times was the hiring manager. He just assumed the guy was another venture capitalist or salesperson wanting to talk to somebody without making an appointment! Everyone in the place was dressed in jeans and polo shirts with sneakers.)

I don't care for Eddy Cue's demeanor in general, but it's Time Warner who is being idiotic if they showed him the door based on his clothing choices.

The real problem here is that network television is another dying monster of the last century. Right now, all they're interested in is securing as much revenue as possible with broadcast rights. They won't negotiate on anything suggesting limiting their ability to jack up rates annually because as soon as they do it for one place, everyone else will feel they should be able to negotiate for the same arrangements. They're going to keep this up for as long as they can (basically, until other people start producing enough original content so they can ignore them).

Apple says, now, that it doesn't want to get into the content creation business with TV ... but honestly? That's one of the smarter moves it could make. Create some "Apple original" TV shows that are really good and exclusive for AppleTV users, and concentrate on deals with everyone else who isn't one of the "big networks" who doesn't want to play ball.
(Oh, and bring back some Apple hardware that's really suitable for TV and movie content CREATION too -- so they use their own tools to make the shows.)

It's pretty disrespectful for Eddy Cue to show up 10 minutes late dressed in jeans and sneakers with no socks and then make very aggressive demands. Comes across as completely arrogant. No wonder Time Warner said screw you. Would Tim Cook have shown up at a similar meeting in jeans and an untucked shirt? My guess is not. Someone needs to tell Eddy to quit dressing like a slob.

 

[George Dawes]

Agree with the general sentiments about eddie cue , he comes over as a cocky slimeball

Nasty piece of work

 

[ncollingridge]

The real problem here is that network television is another dying monster of the last century. Right now, all they're interested in is securing as much revenue as possible with broadcast rights. They won't negotiate on anything suggesting limiting their ability to jack up rates annually because as soon as they do it for one place, everyone else will feel they should be able to negotiate for the same arrangements. They're going to keep this up for as long as they can (basically, until other people start producing enough original content so they can ignore them).

Do you blame them really? If I were them I would spin it out for as long as they can. They can always move quickly to another model if they need to - there does not need to be any lag here and there aren't any greatly apparent benefits to changing the model before they need to. And is it realistic to think that any player can steal customers away using great content unless it is an immense amount of such content and it really is all absolutely great (and has broad appeal as well).

The TV market is incredibly broadly based and does not need to consolidate. I don't think the name of this game is consolidation and domination but integration and making money from a percentage. But Apple are moving too slowly in this respect and not concentrating enough on the real win which would be to create the perfect integration tool, which would embrace all relevant technologies including (shouts of shame!) old ones until their role has totally disappeared. This is not the computer market but a domestic market, and the rules and the way it will evolve are different as a result. I don't think that Apple have even begun to understand their customer here or the market. They seem to be trying to force it into the model they know rather than working on understanding and embracing it the market in the way it actually works now.

 

[kingtj]

The problem I have with "the cost" is simply the fact that no matter how much content all of the channels are producing, I'm only going to really watch a small fraction of it at a time. Therefore, the traditional model is pretty wasteful ... almost like paying your water company to keep water flowing out of all of the sinks in your home 24/7, just so it's conveniently usable whenever you need it.

The concept only works as long as you've got so many subscribers, you can keep the cost for each individual person low enough so they're happy to pay it for whatever is offered that they want to sit down and watch.

Cable providers always resist "a la carte" channel subscriptions because they know it would reveal the TRUE cost of viewing things. They bundle packages of 60 channels or what-not, knowing full well they're providing 35 or 40 of those at very low prices vs. what the "good ones" cost that people really like the most in their cable bundle. They, wisely, want you to feel like you're getting "a lot of content for the price" - vs. feeling like "Dang man... Comedy Central and USA Network cost THIS much per month? Maybe I better re-think just how much I really care if I see what they're showing me!"

The only reason I think satellite or cable providers have an "easier to use" interface than the Internet streaming boxes is due to the simplicity. They're so dumbed-down, grandma or grandpa can easily get around them because you do nothing but find the power button, and then press arrow up or arrow down to go through stations. Another set of arrow buttons turns the volume up or down. And if you're *really* fancy, you can use the keypad to type in a channel number to go right to it.

I don't see what's difficult at all about something like the Amazon Fire where you press the "Mic" button for a second and then just talk to the thing, saying "James Bond" or whatever, and up it pops on the screen?

Like you, I don't have a problem with the cost - as I understand the economics of the bundle system and how it's resulted in a golden age of television programming (and sports coverage!)

....And most of all 'it just works'. I've played around with alternate delivery systems - Roku, Amazon TV, Fire Stick, etc - but they all suffer from an a clunky interface. Any alternative has to meet the 'grandma' theory. If the parents or inlaws are visiting or we have company - can they operate the TV without me having to explain different menus/remotes. Until something gets to that system and still has the depth of programming and sports as the current system, I'll keep what I have.

 

[mtneer]

I don't get it. Apple has had no leverage over the content industry for several years now. So, what is the point of repeatedly playing hardball? Its no wonder that Apple execs are shown the door and a middle finger on the way out. If Apple only wants to negotiate on their terms - they should first gain some leverage in the industry - buy a competitor/ create content/ buy content rights whatever...

 

[nt5672]

. . . . . .You mean to deliver the practically non-existent heavily compressed 4K that very few can actually get delivered? Right...

Nope, I mean the technology leader in 4K before adoption that Apple used to be in other areas, and still claims to be, but no longer is. Their technology leadership now is, for example, buying Beats headphones. That is how they innovate. Or they make a great Mac Pro, then forget to do any upgrades in 3 years, don't, as far as I know, offer a multitude of graphics cards or any other type of innovation. They made it look unique, then thought hey, people will buy it because it is Apple and looks different. Don't get me wrong, looks are important, but not at the sacrifice of performance and capability.

Oh, and if you don't a device to play 4K, there will be, (now don't get shocked at this) no demand.

 

[flaw600]

I am not sure what Apple's strategy is here, but it seems like they want their fingers in two different pies; they want to become THE front end for Big Cable by having traditional cable services hosted on Apple TV, but then they also what to set up their own cable subscription service in direct competition with Big Cable.

They will not succeed in this area if they remain duplicitous about their intentions, look at how far Apple TV has dropped in the market ranks while Apple stumbles around trying to own your living room. Apple needs to pick one of either strategy and go all in, either whore out Big Cable services, or drop them and do their own thing.

In either case, all Apple customers will end up doing is cutting one cord and re-attaching to Apple's own branded cord, I will admit they will make indentured servitude paying a large monthly bill seem nicer, but at the end of the day you will spend $80+ a month to another greedy-ass corporation who doesn't really give a **** about you.

Versus what? This argument can be made for any industry. To get things you need to pay for it - get over it. And no, Apple doesn't want to compete with cable companies - it's trying to work with them. As opposed to Netflix, Amazon, et al
[doublepost=1469807222][/doublepost]

I really don't understand the hate and automatic assumption that this is all on Apple. I mean really how many times have you seen networks battle it out and in public like DirectTV, TimeWarner, etc. These TV cable providers are fighting all the way out the door for the last thread. They are the buggy whip companies that are way past their time and they'll fight tooth and nail for the last cent. So really I have zero sympathy for the cable companies, they've been screwing over their customers for years and they made it into a business practice. Honestly the longer these guys hold out from giving into a system like Apple and consolidating, the more people will realize that TV entertainment is not important at all. You know people can actually live full lives without paying a cent for it and it isn't necessary or a requirement. So seriously TV cable companies, get your crap together and deal because this may be the last thing saving you guys. Remember the news paper holdouts? Where are they now.

You're also putting the automatic blame on the cable companies while forgetting that the current pricing is because of content owners who are demanding bundling. You read that right - networks are demanding the bundling and the higher prices that come with that, not cable companies.
[doublepost=1469807280][/doublepost]

One thing I will say is... in my opinion TV and Ad execs wayyy over value their content. I could't tell you the last time I've seen an ad or a commercial... yet companies still pay millions (I'm told) to place ads because of supposed ROI.

I wonder what would happen if Apple bought Time Warner or Comcast and devalued all the other players out there. There would be no more secret brotherhood propping up each others' inflated valuations.
[doublepost=1469728773][/doublepost]


Also, cake and eat it too... there are 50+ sports channels. Put the sports on there... keep it off of the other channels (I know I'm going to get flamed by sports fans :-D )

It's not supposed ROI, it's actual ROI.

 

[mantan]

The problem I have with "the cost" is simply the fact that no matter how much content all of the channels are producing, I'm only going to really watch a small fraction of it at a time. Therefore, the traditional model is pretty wasteful ... almost like paying your water company to keep water flowing out of all of the sinks in your home 24/7, just so it's conveniently usable whenever you need it.

The concept only works as long as you've got so many subscribers, you can keep the cost for each individual person low enough so they're happy to pay it for whatever is offered that they want to sit down and watch.

Cable providers always resist "a la carte" channel subscriptions because they know it would reveal the TRUE cost of viewing things. They bundle packages of 60 channels or what-not, knowing full well they're providing 35 or 40 of those at very low prices vs. what the "good ones" cost that people really like the most in their cable bundle. They, wisely, want you to feel like you're getting "a lot of content for the price" - vs. feeling like "Dang man... Comedy Central and USA Network cost THIS much per month? Maybe I better re-think just how much I really care if I see what they're showing me!"

The only reason I think satellite or cable providers have an "easier to use" interface than the Internet streaming boxes is due to the simplicity. They're so dumbed-down, grandma or grandpa can easily get around them because you do nothing but find the power button, and then press arrow up or arrow down to go through stations. Another set of arrow buttons turns the volume up or down. And if you're *really* fancy, you can use the keypad to type in a channel number to go right to it.

I don't see what's difficult at all about something like the Amazon Fire where you press the "Mic" button for a second and then just talk to the thing, saying "James Bond" or whatever, and up it pops on the screen?

The TV industry is actually closer to the insurance industry than the water company analogy you provide.

Essentially everybody pools their money into one revenue bucket which allows for a wide variety of programming. The 20-30 channels YOU like are probably different than what other people like. But if those channels had to rely solely on people who paid for them, the cost per channel would be a lot higher.

ESPN charges more than any other channel. But people who like sports get the value of that cost being spread out over a much larger group. A lot of high quality niche shows that are out there wouldn't be made if they relied on the small number of people who would subscribe to that specific channel.

There is a balance in their somewhere. But it will likely result in customers spending much more in skinny bundles or channel packages than they perceive.

 

[flaw600]

Time to poach whomever negotiated Sony's deals... 30 bucks for what they offer is a grand divorce from cable. I think they're too busy listening to the people that seem to think the price of Netflix should be enough for everything they want... people that aren't standing in reality.

Sony's deals suck because they're negotiated per market. That makes rollout incredibly slow. We have people complaining about US-first - now we'll have NY-first.
[doublepost=1469807526][/doublepost]

What role do you play in the entertainment content industry? I am trying to get to how well wired you are in the strategic positioning of the product in that arena.

Not sure that many are saying it is all on Cue - there are clearly industry dynamics that are quite tough. However, to many of us, Cue has a poor track record of accomplishment.

Why? You say that he has a poor record, but actually everything he's touched has gone on to be successful. Just because you don't like the product doesn't make the product unsuccessful.

 

[Dilster3k]

Jobs was hard-nosed as well in negotiations.
[doublepost=1469804281][/doublepost]
Exactly. This something that Jobs himself implied many times, particularly in his biography.
[doublepost=1469804399][/doublepost]
And yet Apple Music is the second-largest streaming service behind Spotify - and growing. Yeah, such a disaster. Hate Cue all you want but he's done his job well and tbh until Phil took over the App Store he really was saddled with too much.
[doublepost=1469804468][/doublepost]
Because they're not trying to compete with cable, unlike Netflix. Btw, the Netflix experiment seems to be shaky these days. Their library has shrunk considerably and growth is stalling.

Great to have you on the forums Mr. Cue.

 

[flaw600]

Which is why they're going down. The more they act like a piggish and irrelevant monopoly, the quicker they will disappear. Gigabit ethernet for everyone makes cable agglomerators irrelevant. What's relevant, not only Apple but all the rest of the little boxes now available will make the cable operators irrelevant and expensive. At the beginning, cable was a great expansion of the programming available. Now it is an over-expensive and bloated service that forces too much programming down people's throats. The future is in a) a new broadcast TV on the local level, given by digital programming, soon to get much better with ATSC 3.0 -- 4K broadcast and interactive elements, and b) streaming, a la carte connections with a huge number of sources not limited to the usual crooks stuffing reality TV down our throats. If you follow baseball, compare TVs coverage with MLB.tv. There is zero comparison,

Gigabit Ethernet is hardly a reality for most people. Most people (almost all) do not have anywhere near those speeds, especially in the US.

A) Believe it or not, but people don't want TV at the local level. Sony's tried this - it has merely frustrated users. 4K is not going to become a thing until sufficiently fast internet for everyone which is not the case.
B) A la carte programming will never be cheap. Ever. This isn't due to cable companies, but instead content owners aka networks. The reasoning bundles are done are because it's not economically feasible to do a la carte pricing - the more adventurous networks require standard programming to maintain a minimum consistent revenue stream.
[doublepost=1469808614][/doublepost]

Apple should buy Disney.

That would be really funny actually. It'd make Apple more of a juggernought then it already is.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Sony's deals suck because they're negotiated per market. That makes rollout incredibly slow. We have people complaining about US-first - now we'll have NY-first.

I hope you're aware Vue is available nationwide.........

Has been since March.

 

[flaw600]

But did your research tell you where almost all of that cash is?

Hint: Apple only has about $17 billion on hand in the US, and has had to borrow something like $60 billion to cover expenses there.

So? Pay them through multiple sources. Not hard.
[doublepost=1469809233][/doublepost]

I'm amazed at how cable and satellite companies bear the sole brunt of consumer anger. The networks and content providers are making huge revenue right now. The cost most of us pay for cable/satellite is directly related to revenue going for content. To that end cable/satellite companies actually try to keep prices down. They know higher prices mean their consumers will look for other options...but each network will push to get as much as they possibly can.

The current model is based on the reliable stream of bundled packages. If there was a true a la carte system, odds are the amount of quality content would be less and the prices wouldn't be much cheaper.

Yeah, we get hit hard for equipment fees. But it's similar to the movie theaters. Theaters don't make revenue on first run movies, that all goes to the studios. Their main revenue source is concessions, so they are going to have a pretty high margin. To that end, I'm OK with it. I've been with DirecTV for 15 years. They've consistently upgraded their technology and customer experience. It's worth the equipment fees I pay.

This. Finally, someone understands. Cable companies actually try to lower costs. It's networks that are responsible for higher costs. The other fees are so cable companies can actually make a decent profit.
[doublepost=1469809321][/doublepost]

LOL, It's fine for Apple to be greedy, have an insane profit margin and have a pile of money....but heaven forbid anybody else want to make a profit.

Gotta love MacRumors

Except Apple making a profit and being greedy benefits consumers, unlike networks making profits. That's why consumers are for this.
[doublepost=1469809443][/doublepost]

The problem is there are too many bottom dwellers feeding off the subscription model in the cable industry. Looking at Time Warner's cable lineup as an example, do that many people really watch channels like Freeform, Hallmark Channel, Jewelry TV, FXX, Pivot, Reelz, Cloo, Centric, Youtoo, I could go on but I'm really bored of looking through this list for crappy channels that a small fraction of the population actually cares about. Why should I have to pay for all this other crap?

I wish we could completely untether the idea of "channels" from the content. I dream of a day where TV is just delivered through a few big streaming services that pretty much have all the same content. Whatever good new show rises to the top and they get a fractional cut of playtime money just like streaming music services do. The more views, the more money. I don't see why the two should be any different except that the movie and TV industry is more of a monopoly where you have to put up a lot more money to get the ball rolling vs. making an album, so things move slower and you need investors.

The thing is that I'm finding more and more quality content on places like YouTube that makes me not even miss cable. The production value you can get today is incredible with the latest gear and editing software, and there's a lot of quality talent out there putting out great work. If the big media companies don't recognize that, then they deserve to fail.

Anyway, I'm willing to pay more for a streaming system for movies or TV than for music, as I understand it costs a lot more to put it all together than music does—especially since most shows and movies have a music soundtrack on top of everything else. So yeah, $30-50/mo seems reasonable. Maybe they could have tiered pricing based on how much you consume? 2hr/day for $30/mo, 4hr/day for $40/mo, 6hr/day for $50/mo, or unlimited for $60/mo. Or it could be out of a total number of hours per month, or per how many shows. I don't want to over-complicate it because that could kill it out of the gates, but I really want to have access to the latest stuff sometimes, but we don't watch a ton of TV in general, so I really don't want to pay for all this crap I don't use.

You know that this is the same model for music streaming? That's not really making a profit right now.
[doublepost=1469809579][/doublepost]

What I don't understand is what has happened here. Steve told Issacson for his autobiography that he'd figured out television. I just don't get why Cook and co didn't follow Steve's instructions to the T. The television industry would be in a better place right now if Steve's direction were followed five years ago.

Seems to me Apple has blown it by trying to Think Different.
[doublepost=1469743472][/doublepost]

We call it maximizing shareholder's return, here in the U.S. of A.

You seem to think that they're not. Jobs's plans often took years to be implemented properly, which is really what's happening here. Jobs also had negotiations that took awhile.
[doublepost=1469809721][/doublepost]

Are you sure about that?? Next to last sentence: "Disney balked."

View attachment 642331

The negotiations themselves are proof of the close relationship. Disney balking doesn't mean that they won't continue to negotiate.
[doublepost=1469809852][/doublepost]

You might have a point if not for services like Playstation Vue, which are exactly what Apple was going after but failed to accomplish due to the incompetence and arrogance of their execs. So now instead of getting my money, Sony is.

And Sony can't get my money because of the way they're negotiating. They're doing it per market which is really haphazard and has the very real potential of blowing up in their faces.
[doublepost=1469810338][/doublepost]

It's pretty disrespectful for Eddy Cue to show up 10 minutes late dressed in jeans and sneakers with no socks and then make very aggressive demands. Comes across as completely arrogant. No wonder Time Warner said screw you. Would Tim Cook have shown up at a similar meeting in jeans and an untucked shirt? My guess is not. Someone needs to tell Eddy to quit dressing like a slob.

Others have done the same. That had little to do with anything.
[doublepost=1469810767][/doublepost]

The PS Vue app situation puzzles me. They have an iOS app, but not one for AppleTV. They have an Android app, but not one for Sony's own Antroid TVs. But they do support Roku and FireTV boxes. Maybe they'll get around to developing the other apps sometime soon.

I still don't get why Apple can't at least copy what Sony has done with PS Vue. It's a compelling service that would be made even better with Apple's hardware and UI.

Because PS Vue is excellent where it exists. Sony has chosen to go the piecemeal route and negotiate per market. Not only does this mean that few markets have Vue, but that there are inconsistent packages and offerings throughout the scale of their operations. Apple would rather have everything standardized.
[doublepost=1469810926][/doublepost]

Like you, I don't have a problem with the cost - as I understand the economics of the bundle system and how it's resulted in a golden age of television programming (and sports coverage!)

I have DirecTV and have been satisfied with the customer service. I've had one significant technical issue in 15 years that took a couple of visits to fix. But they do a great job of continually upgrading their equipment, features and amenties. Whether it was releasing DVRs before most cable companies, whole home DVR, wireless, streaming features of the tablet a high quality app...they've done a great job.

And most of all 'it just works'. I've played around with alternate delivery systems - Roku, Amazon TV, Fire Stick, etc - but they all suffer from an a clunky interface. Any alternative has to meet the 'grandma' theory. If the parents or inlaws are visiting or we have company - can they operate the TV without me having to explain different menus/remotes. Until something gets to that system and still has the depth of programming and sports as the current system, I'll keep what I have.

Personally imo Apple's come the closest to that. Even my parents can figure it out within 10 min and they hate the cables' interface.

 

[dogslobber]

You seem to think that they're not. Jobs's plans often took years to be implemented properly, which is really what's happening here. Jobs also had negotiations that took awhile.

Steve did negotiate over long durations but the goal was reached. All Apple have right now is 5 years of void since Steve's untimely passing and nothing to show for it. Nothing. Programmatically, this is:

big_spanky_deal *
apple_negotiate_telly_deal()
{
sleep(5*365*24*60^3);
return (NULL);
}

 

[flaw600]

Really? What has Apple ever done that makes you think if they get a significantly better deal, they will pass it onto customers?

The entire history of the company says they will pocket the entire benefit they negotiate and on top of that mark it up a bit more because Apple is worth the extra cost.

Did you pay attention to the article? Seems like they were being pretty pro-consumer to me.

 

[MacBH928]

Its simple, this is the first time where Apple does not have the upper hand. There are other established competitions with customer base like Netflix that Disney can sell to. Unlike when Apple was the only music player manufacturer, TV companies have other options.

 

[flaw600]

Jobs got the deals done. And Apple benefited big time. I guess you don't know what the OP meant by "je ne sais quoi"?

Jobs got the deals done when Apple wasn't a significant threat to the market - a perceived one, anyway. He struggled to get the deals done once Apple became bigger (after '08). Specifically, he too was having issues with TV. And yes, he came up with a plan but no one said it was going to be quick or easy to implement.
[doublepost=1469811306][/doublepost]

Absolutely crucial. I agree entirely. Apple used to be good at this stuff but they have seriously dropped the ball with TV. They need to be an integrator without equal here, accepting the role of other program sources including (for the time being) blu-ray etc and making it all much easier to use than the competition. Then they might start to gain some traction, but as it is they are pretty much dead in the water as far as I can see in terms of gaining any appreciable market share.

Here in the UK, Sky is a seriously good example of a company that has put a lot of effort into how to present this stuff to the end user in a way that even grannies (and grandpas!) can handle without much problem. And they keep on evolving the service and the hardware without waiting for their competitors to catch up. Apple are way behind where Sky are now and even though I have an AppleTV I must admit i never use it because it just is not as compelling (or even useful) a solution.

Interestingly, anyone who's come over to use the Apple TV has picked it up within 10 min. of using it. So there's a difference between you not liking the UX and the UX being complicated.
[doublepost=1469811683][/doublepost]

The problem I have with "the cost" is simply the fact that no matter how much content all of the channels are producing, I'm only going to really watch a small fraction of it at a time. Therefore, the traditional model is pretty wasteful ... almost like paying your water company to keep water flowing out of all of the sinks in your home 24/7, just so it's conveniently usable whenever you need it.

The concept only works as long as you've got so many subscribers, you can keep the cost for each individual person low enough so they're happy to pay it for whatever is offered that they want to sit down and watch.

Cable providers always resist "a la carte" channel subscriptions because they know it would reveal the TRUE cost of viewing things. They bundle packages of 60 channels or what-not, knowing full well they're providing 35 or 40 of those at very low prices vs. what the "good ones" cost that people really like the most in their cable bundle. They, wisely, want you to feel like you're getting "a lot of content for the price" - vs. feeling like "Dang man... Comedy Central and USA Network cost THIS much per month? Maybe I better re-think just how much I really care if I see what they're showing me!"

The only reason I think satellite or cable providers have an "easier to use" interface than the Internet streaming boxes is due to the simplicity. They're so dumbed-down, grandma or grandpa can easily get around them because you do nothing but find the power button, and then press arrow up or arrow down to go through stations. Another set of arrow buttons turns the volume up or down. And if you're *really* fancy, you can use the keypad to type in a channel number to go right to it.

I don't see what's difficult at all about something like the Amazon Fire where you press the "Mic" button for a second and then just talk to the thing, saying "James Bond" or whatever, and up it pops on the screen?

You do realize that it's the networks that are responsible for the bundling right? Cable companies resist a la carte pricing because then they end up paying more to the networks as a result. The networks push bundling in order to get a sustainable revenue as well as provide a basis for their smaller channels. You want to know why you often only watch 5 of the 40-100 channels in your bundle? Because networks want the smaller channels to be there. Cable companies actually want lower costs for bundles because then they get to maintain their margins while getting more people to sign up.

 

[bitslap47]

...
It's not supposed ROI, it's actual ROI.

I deal with a lot of audio and video media, as well as advertising in general. If anybody is currently seeing any actual ROI (making more from advertising than what they pay out, and being able to prove that) then it won't be that way for long.

There is nobody I know personally that would be able to name the last x commercials they've seen.

They all own TiVOs and skip commercials, watch from services that provide commercial free, have their routers and firewalls block ads, etc. Even if playing a game on a phone and a video ad comes up, walk away from the phone, get something to drink, whatever, but anything other than watch or look at an ad.

It's just the way things are.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ineffectiveness-of-video-ads-online-and-on-tv-2016-6

http://www.mirriad.com/news/online-video-and-tv-ads-consistently-reaching-less-than-10-of-viewers/

 

[flaw600]

Nope, I mean the technology leader in 4K before adoption that Apple used to be in other areas, and still claims to be, but no longer is. Their technology leadership now is, for example, buying Beats headphones. That is how they innovate. Or they make a great Mac Pro, then forget to do any upgrades in 3 years, don't, as far as I know, offer a multitude of graphics cards or any other type of innovation. They made it look unique, then thought hey, people will buy it because it is Apple and looks different. Don't get me wrong, looks are important, but not at the sacrifice of performance and capability.

Oh, and if you don't a device to play 4K, there will be, (now don't get shocked at this) no demand.

You seem to think that Apple was ever a forefront leader of technologies. Why would Apple want to be at the forefront of a technology that isn't used and has significant hurdles to overcome? 4K is not a highly used technology. Hell, 1080p isn't even being delivered consistently OTA/OTI. 4K is not going to be used until the internet gets the capability to deliver it on a mass scale. That won't happen for years, so it makes no sense to support it now, especially since so little content is even being made at that standard. Seriously only a few Netflix, Amazon, and maybe Hulu shows are being distributed at that standard. There's like maybe 20 shows that are being distributed under that standard and all of those are via services that don't hold a userbase really comparable to cable companies and movie studios. And even the 4K that is being delivered is heavily compressed. Why? Because the world - and especially the US - does not have the bandwidth capable to sustain that rate of transmission at a mass scale. When that hurdle is passed, then Apple should adopt 4K. Until then it's useless.

Oh and your 4K device comment? Yeah, there will be no demand if content can't be reliably delivered.

 

[randian]

$30 a month for customers with Apple getting $10 lol, no wonder TV/movie studios are laughing. What is Apple bringing to the table that media companies don't already have?

What Apple makes is irrelevant. The studios are presuming they've already captured all possible profits, which is likely not true. "We won't deal because you're making money too" is childish reasoning. What matters is the marginal profit the other guy is bringing you.

 

[bitslap47]

You seem to think that Apple was ever a forefront leader of technologies. Why would Apple want to be at the forefront of a technology that isn't used and has significant hurdles to overcome? 4K is not a highly used technology. Hell, 1080p isn't even being delivered consistently OTA/OTI. 4K is not going to be used until the internet gets the capability to deliver it on a mass scale. That won't happen for years, so it makes no sense to support it now, especially since so little content is even being made at that standard. Seriously only a few Netflix, Amazon, and maybe Hulu shows are being distributed at that standard. There's like maybe 20 shows that are being distributed under that standard and all of those are via services that don't hold a userbase really comparable to cable companies and movie studios. And even the 4K that is being delivered is heavily compressed. Why? Because the world - and especially the US - does not have the bandwidth capable to sustain that rate of transmission at a mass scale. When that hurdle is passed, then Apple should adopt 4K. Until then it's useless.

Oh and your 4K device comment? Yeah, there will be no demand if content can't be reliably delivered.

There are other reasons to compress... cost savings would be one.

 

[flaw600]

Great to have you on the forums Mr. Cue.

I mean, you can hate on the man all you want - I don't like him as much as the other execs, myself - but to deny his successes is to simply be willfully ignorant.
[doublepost=1469813181][/doublepost]

I hope you're aware Vue is available nationwide.........

Has been since March.

Yes, but it was negotiated per-market which has resulted in inconsistent offerings.

 

[gijoeinla]

Apple Television will never happen with Cue in charge because he's an arrogant SOB.

Oh ok. Cue's arrogant and the industry isn't lol!!

 

[mtbgtr]

Gigabit Ethernet for everyone is still a long way off

 

[flaw600]

Steve did negotiate over long durations but the goal was reached. All Apple have right now is 5 years of void since Steve's untimely passing and nothing to show for it. Nothing. Programmatically, this is:

big_spanky_deal *
apple_negotiate_telly_deal()
{
sleep(5*365*24*60^3);
return (NULL);
}

I mean the iPhone 5 was released. The 5s introduced TouchID which was big. People went crazy over the 6/6+ and Apple Pay was launched. Say what you want about the Apple Watch but nearly all owners love it. So it's not like nothing happened. Oh, you're talking about the TV? They didn't really start getting serious about the TV until 2-3 years ago. They did release the Apple TV 4, which I and everyone else I know finds fairly useful. Oh, you mean content? I mean now you have apps launched by different networks, although admittedly most still require cable subscriptions, and you have Universal Search. Oh, you mean Apple-negotiated content? Yeah, 2-3 years of negotiations isn't uncommon when trying to do huge deals. Remember that the last time a deal of this scale was attempted, it was with the music industry which was in shambles. The TV market is not.
[doublepost=1469814312][/doublepost]

There are other reasons to compress... cost savings would be one.

It has been well-established that the biggest hurdle to 4K content is the availability of bandwidth. Certainly there are cost savings, but there are actual, real technical hurdles.