Eddy Cue on Apple TV: Customers Should Be Able to 'Buy Whatever They Want, However They Want'

Netflix creating great content? I take back everything i said, Netflix is now releasing a new TV series called Jessica Jones, a series that will fail miserably, because the series it's rated R...and both the story & character are not rated R..they are PG, but after the series fails, then Netflix will come and say: our series dint do to well, because grownups are not that interested in superheroes, FU Netflix! go watch Deadpool box office results..it's gonna demolish your pg characters in terms of viewing
This is a good time to for Apple to ally with DC, and create a Batman Rated R TV series
 
ipedro said:
Over the air channels can already support themselves with advertising. If I have an antenna, I can pick up basic channels in crisp HD for free.
Those channels should just offer apps for their channels for free as they do over the air and then explore the new abilities that an app can offer their advertisers. Ads can be demographically relevant for one. Secondly, they can be interactive. As an ad is playing, click a link to download the product's app or to buy that product with Apple Pay. This offers a lot more value to advertisers who will pay these channels more than they do on dumb advertising rotating on broadcasts over the air.
Clinging to the way things have been done for decades is only going to result in new innovative players coming in and eating the traditional broadcasters' lunch.
Click to expand...
That's sounds like a win win to me. They should do exactly this.
 
Supermallet said:
Honestly, I'd be fine if we got the same sorts of cable packages currently offered, but through our own set top boxes. To me the biggest issue with the cable companies wasn't the bundling, but the unnecessary, always outdated tech they used to deliver it. You'd have to wait for the cable guy to show up, hours late, to hook up your cable. They'd inevitably screw something up. You'd get an ugly remote that looked like some $5 Radio Shack reject. You'd get heavily compressed, low quality images. And all of that costs you extra money per month, and if you ever canceled your service you have to get the boxes and remotes back to the cable company yourself.

I'd be fine if Time Warner or Comcast or Charter etc. offered roughly the same basic set of cable packages we have now, but it's all piped in through an ATV/Roku/Fire/PS4/Xbox One, whatever. Give us some cloud storage for DVR, you can charge extra per month for higher allotments of DVR space. No contracts, no hidden fees, no blackouts or exceptions, just the same exact thing I can get with a cable subscription, just using my own hardware. Just give me a set of channels for a fair price and I'll pay it. Sony is basically doing this with their TV service on the PS4. I tried it for a bit and it was nice, but ultimately I still felt like I was overpaying (I think it was $50 per month) compared to what I was getting.

I already own my own modem, so I'm not paying extra fees for my internet (but I tell you I have to check my bill every month because they love to try to throw the modem rental fee in even though I'm not renting a modem). I want the same thing for my TV. Let me choose what hardware works best for me, then sell me your service through it. Is that too much to ask?

That being said, I would prefer a channel selection process that's a little more customizable than what we get now. What we should be doing is saying, "Pay X dollars for Y amount of channels," and it doesn't matter what channels those are. Now, there are premium channels that feel they can get away with charging more for access to their content, that's fine. Those are high visibility channels but 99% of what is on cable is not HBO or Showtime or Starz. So why couldn't I choose to get, say AMC instead of ESPN and pay the same price? Maybe get IFC instead of Discovery. And so on.
Click to expand...

A big part of cable/satellite profit is made up from equipment and set top boxes. A 'use your own box' could be viable though. I could see it as a DTV, Dish, etc icon through Roku, ATV, etc. But in those models I think they would still look to charge a 'delivery fee' per unit...probably that would probably tiered based on the number of simultaneous users to your account. (similar to netfllix.)

The delivery issue gets tricky because the content providers want the financial revenue security that traditional cable/satellite contracts/equipment give them. Moving the delivery to 'online' has the satcoms basically walking their customers down the aisle to potentially cutting the cord. Once they get used to consuming content without the box, they will question the need for bundled packaging.

Some cable companies are dabbing their toe in it. (Cox) But those are the ones who are also deeply involved in the internet service side as well. Consumers are likely going to pay the same either way, it's just where those fees come from. I compare it to the cell phone industry where we pay the same amount we did for years...we just pay it for data instead of voice/text.
 
So, according to the headline, when will Apple allow me to buy a 27" iMac that has some useful ports on it, that I can use as a monitor for a games console? Never? Sounds like double-talking cheating policy to me.
 
bommai said:
I like my TV ad-free like Netflix. Everything else is FAIL....
Click to expand...

You know somebody has to pay the freight on shows to get made, right?

The Netflix model is essentially the equivalent of restaurants selling their leftovers the next day. For those who don't want to catch things first run (or like to binge watch shows later) it's great. The content providers make a little gravy on the backend instead of nothing.

If you pull advertising out of TV, than that cost is gonna get pushed directly to the consumer.
 
I agree with Eddy, but application of this is really restricted in the apple world.

Give IOS and Apple TV access to:

Vudu
PlayStation Video
Independent video content providers
Porn?

Apple says it's ok via AirPlay from web browser, I think it's time to do better and really allow third party apps to install, even if not sold via apple App Store
 
iMember said:
Netflix creating great content? I take back everything i said, Netflix is now releasing a new TV series called Jessica Jones, a series that will fail miserably, because the series it's rated R...and both the story & character are not rated R..they are PG, but after the series fails, then Netflix will come and say: our series dint do to well, because grownups are not that interested in superheroes, FU Netflix! go watch Deadpool box office results..it's gonna demolish your pg characters in terms of viewing
This is a good time to for Apple to ally with DC, and create a Batman Rated R TV series
Click to expand...

I'm SO confused by your rant.
Wtf are you even trying to say????
Alias was DEFINITELY a "rated R" comic, & Netflix has been billing this as a "rated R" tv show.
Soooooooo....
(also, this is DIRECTLY built off of the wildly popular Daredevil mini & introduces Luke Cage, a popular hero in his own right, destined to get his own mini... I don't think you are remotely correct in your offhandedly silly guess about this failing)
 
rrm74001 said:
What do people not get about this? There is a gosh-darn SDK. If a content provider (such as Amazon) wants to make an app for the AppleTV, they are more than welcome. Nothing is stopping them.

I would imagine that alot of the problem here is that Apple takes a cut of all in-app purchases. That probably is not motivating Amazon very much.
Click to expand...

But what purchases would there be with Prime? Amazon gives prime video to Prime members. That's not a purchase that happens on the video watching platform.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. If Amazon does not release a Prime app for TvOS they are just engaging in childish games at the expense of their own best interests.
 
Why do you think Apple can't seem to understand why every other company does not want to be tied to Apple?

Giving Apple more cut of their profits, and offering their content via Apple, confirming to Apple's rules.

Do they really not grasp that most/all companies don't want this?
 
vkd said:
So, according to the headline, when will Apple allow me to buy a 27" iMac that has some useful ports on it, Never? Sounds like double-talking cheating policy to me.
Click to expand...
My new 27 iMac has very useful ports on it. They are all being used. There is nothing else I need.
 
mdntcallr said:
I agree with Eddy, but application of this is really restricted in the apple world.

Give IOS and Apple TV access to:

Vudu
PlayStation Video
Independent video content providers
Porn?

Apple says it's ok via AirPlay from web browser, I think it's time to do better and really allow third party apps to install, even if not sold via apple App Store
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what about this very basic point is so difficult to understand: Anyone is welcome to use the SDK to develop an app and submit it to Apple for TvOS. That includes Vudu, Sony or independent video content providers. This is one of the basic killer features of the new Apple TV. Having said that, Apple has clear policies regarding pornographic content in their app store, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Finally, you can forget about Apple EVER allowing anyone to load anything on their iOS devices from anywhere other than the App Store.
 
MacRumors said:
Apple wants customers to be "able to buy whatever they want, however they want."
Click to expand...
However, because "Universal" Search fails to include user's iTunes Library (in home sharing),
Apple TV encourages users to buy titles they already own (and thus do NOT want to buy).

My MAIN issue with Apple TV is "Universal" Search should:
a) include my iTunes Library from my Mac (which I home-shared) and
b) list my iTunes Library first.
Otherwise, Apple TV makes it:
a) impractical to scroll though thousands of titles in my Library and
b) easy to accidentally buy movies I already own (ripped from Blue Ray or DVD disks).

If Apple is worried about violating user's privacy, make it an "opt in" feature.

If Apple is worried about imperfect metadata (difficult to match), provide incomplete search results.
It would be better than no results at all, and users could improve search results by adding better metadata in iTunes.

I hope Apple fixes it in the next software update. It would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
MacRumors said:
Eddy Cue on Apple TV: Customers Should Be Able to 'Buy Whatever They Want, However They Want'
Click to expand...
Sure Eddie, that's great. Only three issues with that.
  1. Not enough content outside the US on the Apple TV.
  2. Many ISP's within and outside the US make streaming or downlaoding HD content (or even SD content atimes) on the Apple TV prohibitively expensive.
  3. Many ISP's within and outside the US don't even offer the internet speeds required to download (within a resonable time) ir stream the content in certain areas.
Great idea Eddie. A shame it's not a possibility today.
 
Piggie said:
Why do you think Apple can't seem to understand why every other company does not want to be tied to Apple?

Giving Apple more cut of their profits, and offering their content via Apple, confirming to Apple's rules.

Do they really not grasp that most/all companies don't want this?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's an interesting point...as I look at my Apple TV and see icons for Netflix, PBS, YouTube, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, Lifetime, Yahoo, ABC, CBS, CNBC, Fox, Disney, A&E, National Geographic, AirBnB, Disney, Plex and more.

Have you informed these entities that they're not companies?

I think what you're referring to is the fact that many companies don't want to give up the autocratic power they have held over you for decades when it comes to the manner in which they will let you have access to their product, and the price that they will get from you for granting you said access.

I always cracks me up when I read these rants about how Apple is the big, bad evil company when it comes to the distribution of media. And in fact, the truth of the matter is Apple is your best friend. They are working their a**es off to do with video media what they did with music and mobile technology. Which is to make it more accessible, affordable and democratic.

sambaman1 said:
However, because "Universal" Search fails to include user's iTunes Library (in home sharing),
Apple TV encourages users to buy titles they already own.

My MAIN issue with Apple TV is "Universal" Search should:
a) include my iTunes Library from my Mac (which I home-shared) and
b) list my iTunes Library first.
Otherwise, Apple TV makes it:
a) impractical to scroll though thousands of titles in my Library and
b) easy to accidentally buy movies I already own (ripped from Blue Ray or DVD disks).

If Apple is worried about violating user's privacy, make it an "opt in" feature.

If Apple is worried about imperfect metadata (difficult to match), provide incomplete search results.
It would be better than no results at all, and users could improve search results by adding better metadata in iTunes.

I hope Apple fixes it in the next software update. It would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Use Plex. It's free, and it will offer you the ability to easily see and use all of your video media in an app that rivals the iTunes app and Netflix for aesthetics and metadata content. And Apple will be opening up the Siri search API to developers very soon, at which time Plex should provide you the ability to use Siri to locate your media with a universal search.

People, the beauty of this new platform is that it brings a wide open App Store, just like the iPhone and iPad. The possibilities are nearly limitless here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rdlink said:
And in fact, the truth of the matter is Apple is your best friend. They are working their a**es off to do with video media what they did with music and mobile technology. Which is to make it more accessible, affordable and democratic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not realise they were offering an open platform.
I stupidly thought they wanted to take a large cut of everything they let you sell via their platform and that was their reasoning behind this, to make money.

Silly me for thinking that... it's for the good of mankind as a whole of course!
 
Rogifan said:
Ask Bezos.

The issue isn't cable providers its the content companies. Right now I have DirecTV and can watch almost any channel on my iPad wherever I want. Why do I need an TV subscription package? And from Cue's comments it seems like Apple is more interested in creating a platform for others to offer subscription services.
Click to expand...

No, it's the cable companies. That's where the monopoly lies. They provide a nice money stream to broadcasters, and demand fealty. That's why people who make programs all toe the line: Oh, if you want the "live" programming, sign up with your cable ID. I've had the Dish Anywhere app, and it was fun, in principle. But why use it when you have a nice HDTV in the corner? Watch two shows simultaneously?
 
Piggie said:
Sorry, I did not realise they were offering an open platform.
I stupidly thought they wanted to take a large cut of everything they let you sell via their platform and that was their reasoning behind this, to make money.

Silly me for thinking that... it's for the good of mankind as a whole of course!
Click to expand...

Ah, the open platform nonsense. The thing about a platform is, it has to be created. The confusion for a lot of people is that they take a software term and equate it with political freedom. Which is, frankly, a joke.
 
Piggie said:
Sorry, I did not realise they were offering an open platform.
I stupidly thought they wanted to take a large cut of everything they let you sell via their platform and that was their reasoning behind this, to make money.

Silly me for thinking that... it's for the good of mankind as a whole of course!
Click to expand...

They're a for-profit company. But being for-profit and not screwing over their customers while showering them with BS statements (like media production and distribution companies have done for decades) are not mutually exclusive.

If you're too myopic to see the difference that's your problem.
 
I suspect that we are seeing the same issue as currentC. The stores wanted to maintain control and have access to your profile and buying habits. But delivering content through the Apple ecosystem usually means that the customer experience is partially given to apple, and in return less information is given back to the content owner. Just like all the channels that have already created an app or like hulu, netflix, HBO, etc., cable companies could easily create an app to deliver their content through the apple TV. Comcast already has an app that does this on the iPad (Xfinity TV Go). But these monopolies are slow to give up control. I am not sure if apple should do their own bundle, but instead try to get the cable companies to deliver their content through Apple TV. This would actually, IMHO, be the perfect scenario. If I could get DirectTV, Comcast, TimeWarner, Verizon, or any other cable App on my Apple TV and subscribe, it would finally create competition. I think that would allow for more creative bundling and a la cart options. This would eliminate the content provider monopoly and only leave the internet connection monopoly to wrestle with. I am thinking way out of the box of course, and most cable companies are not wanting to go there, but I think it is just a time issue. CurrentC never had a chance because they are Lat to the game, but the cable companies are established and Apple is late so it will take a little more time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top