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

[thepixelpusher]

I think you're missing the point. If you have an HD antenna, you must live in one of the 25 or so markets that actually have more than one HD OTA channel. The rest of the US, and the rest of the world doesn't. People who live in cities aren't allowed to install DBS (pizza-sized satellite dish), while people who live in the countryside or in mountainous areas are lucky if they even get one TV channel OTA. IPTV offers a way to get "all the TV" channels that someone could possibly want regardless of their internet connection or ISP.

Smaller ISP's (think ones that do NOT offer their own TV package) often offer internet access but aren't big enough to negotiate with these large broadcasters. There are some community cable systems that would not be empowered to make such deals, and thus all they ever offer are "Basic" packages which just relay the broadcast channels from the nearest city.

So what Apple offers here could enable more smaller ISP's/ISP competition because now the TV "subsidy" can be disconnected from the internet package. So large players like Comcast in the US and Shaw/Rogers/Bell in Canada who own a disproportionate amount of "television content" and also own their own internet infrastructure tend to have monopoly power or duopoly's in the market where they own the only viable internet service. So these companies will be the most "hurt" from cord-cutting.

On the flipside, ISP's that do not own their own media, or strictly limit it to community channels come out ahead here because they can offer larger caps/faster internet packages without the need to invest in IPTV infrastructure (eg the former Microsoft Mediaroom technology.) They just need to make sure their backhaul can support it.

Past experiences with "streaming" anything from Apple is a bit of a crapshoot through. So I don't see Apple making a "dent" in cable services though it may force cable companies to offer pick-and-play or smaller/cheaper packages that are equal to that of which Apple offers to avoid "cable cutting".

I live in a very small town in Wisconsin and I get the major Networks, plus PBS, MeTV and more from a very small HD antenna in my living room. I'm sure you've underestimated the free HD Over the Air transmissions range and wide selection of channels. I'm in a very rural area and get many channels with tons of trees around too.

Can you link to the Buzzfeed coverage? I'm oddly invested in following this issue.. I'd assume Amazon wants in-app purchases without an "Apple tax" and is hoping Apple blinks..

The in-purchase Apple tax has dropped to 15% recently, so no more 30%.

Though that might not even be enough to satisfy Amazon. I hope Apple and Amazon come to some agreement because I buy heavily from both, but I only have an AppleTV. I buy most of my Amazon purchases through my computer, but would love using my AppleTV.

Amazon is big enough that Apple should carve out a special contract with them. But will Amazon favor sales on their own FireTV and snub Apple...maybe?

 

[alexgowers]

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.

I agree but I feel like apple could have just made the appletv be a directv/slingbox type device as well as the new features. Then you can pvr any channel and organise it along with your other content and never leave the apple TV software.

In confused why apple want to pursue these old giant content makers when they could get in bed with Netflix etc and build totally new content empires that really do move things forward. 200billion could make a lot of movies and TV shows

 

[g0nz0]

Alright Eddy... I'd like to buy some emulator Apps, a Bluetooth keyboard and a standard Bluetooth game controller for use with my ATV4.

Yeah. Thought so.

 

[vkd]

I want to buy an iMac that I can use as a monitor for a games console, either PS or Xbox. As it stands, Thunderbolt is a “closed shop” type of port with virtually no use for the layman-in-the-street, only offering use to to a severely limited clique of rich professional users who need extra storage or suchlike. So when will Cue and his company release a product that customers, as he himself says, "Should Be Able to 'Buy Whatever They Want, However They Want'"

 

[DarwinOSX]

Why would I pay $40 a month for basic channels?? I paid $50 for my HD antenna and get all those channels with no monthly bill. They need to step up their game if they want to break into the TV industry.

Good Luck

Why are you assuming that is all they will have based on rumor or that is even the price.

Buying whatever you want does not mean Apple should build you whatever you personally want anymore than you should be able to create your own app or tv channel which is what he is saying here. That should be obvious....there is a whole mass market out there.

 

[LordVic]

US needs the CRTC

a regulatory board who'se primary job is to keep corporate interests in Telecom in line .

its mandated in Canada that every canadian should have access to certain national TV channels for free OTA or on basic systems
CRTC also passed regulation last year that mandated that Cable / Satellite companies provide 'a la carte' cable programming allowing consumers to buy only the channels they want.
Mandatory maximum $25 / mth for basic cable that MUST include a couple local news channels, public service channels and a few major networks.

you should have seen the cable companies throw a fit.

 

[G4er?]

"We want to get to the point where customers are able to buy whatever they want, however they want."

I guess that is why Apple just stopped letting people use Paypal?

And I would like to buy a desktop Mac that is easy to get into and upgrade and has some internal expansion.

 

[winston1236]

Sadly TV won't be revolutionized until the "sign in with cable provider" is a thing of the past and networks directly sell their content.

 

[ChrisCW11]

The reality is, and Apple knows this and wants this to happen, is that consumers will end up paying $250 a month total for dozens of different subscriptions through Apple TV and those consumers will think they outsmarted the cable provider by cutting the cord, even though they were only paying $80 a month for the exact same content on one bill.

The reality is that consumers are naive and will not bother to tally up all their individual $5 and $10 subscriptions per month here and there and will end up paying more in the long run. On top of that Apple will create a new revenue stream that will make more profit then the cable industry has ever made delivering the very same content and Apple will continue to delude all their consumers into thinking they are getting a better product.

In the end everyone will think cable companies were evil and Apple is, as always, an entirely benevolent company that is only looking out for the consumers, but all Apple really wants is to stick another finger in your "wallet".

 

[ChrisCW11]

Sadly TV won't be revolutionized until the "sign in with cable provider" is a thing of the past and networks directly sell their content.

Seriously, you think you will pay less for paying for stuff direct? Sure at first maybe all the content will be cheap, $5 per subscription here and there, and then 5 years from now all the networks and content providers all up their subscription fees to $15 or $20 a month and in the end you are paying $200+ across a dozen subscriptions instead of the $50 - $80 you pay today for cable today.

Netflix has more than doubled their subscription fees in the last 5 years and HBO simply started at $15, so right there for 2 services you are paying $30 a month, and you don't even have access to 1/2 of the content cable TV provides.

 

[Robin4]

Seriously, you think you will pay less for paying for stuff direct? Sure at first maybe all the content will be cheap, $5 per subscription here and there, and then 5 years from now all the networks and content providers all up their subscription fees to $15 or $20 a month and in the end you are paying $200+ across a dozen subscriptions instead of the $50 - $80 you pay today for cable today.

Netflix has more than doubled their subscription fees in the last 5 years and HBO simply started at $15, so right there for 2 services you are paying $30 a month, and you don't even have access to 1/2 of the content cable TV provides.

I paid $120.00 for regular service cable 7 years ago, nothing extra. I cut the cord, do not regret it at all.

Netflix and Hulu have not hiked their rates since then. They may be doing it for new customers, I don't know.

I pay $20.00 to Sling tv. I had an old antenna from way back then and it still works, ha.

So, I don't see how you come up with your figures. 7 years - no cable, no regrets.

 

[flaw600]

I agree. People should be able to buy what they want when they want...now can they give us an Amazon app?

That isn't Apple's fault - it's Amazon's. Apple isn't restricting Amazon making an app - Amazon isn't making one.

 

[flaw600]

Cable companies are forced to give you bundles of channels by the networks and studios. You are complaining about the wrong industry.

Exactly. It's content providers pushing this, not cable companies.

 

[flaw600]

If Apple can let me pick and choose what channels/services I want to actually pay for that would be the television revolution we've all been waiting for.

If they debut an "internet television package" (aka cable lite) then they've failed.

No, it will not be a TV revolution. You will not be paying significantly less to buy a la carte. Playstation Vue does this already, and even Sony has admitted that buying a la carte is expensive because the networks - NOT the cable companies - push bundles.

 

[flaw600]

I paid $120.00 for regular service cable 7 years ago, nothing extra. I cut the cord, do not regret it at all.

Netflix and Hulu have not hiked their rates since then. They may be doing it for new customers, I don't know.

I pay $20.00 to Sling tv. I had an old antenna from way back then and it still works, ha.

So, I don't see how you come up with your figures. 7 years - no cable, no regrets.

Um, they did indeed hike their rates since 7 years ago. Netflix locks your current rate for a year when they hike rates for new customers and then they hike your rates too. They do it slowly so that you don't notice.

 

[flaw600]

To Quote:
"Specifically, Cue said the new Apple TV could support whole cable packages from content providers such as Comcast, but he refused to elaborate much further, beyond alluding that Apple wants customers to be "able to buy whatever they want, however they want."

Another one of thousands of examples of Apples Love Of Hypocrisy. They say one thing and do another, its laughable how they lie. One minute they want us to believe this. The next minute they are dictating what limited models they will make. Long time iPhone customers loved the small iPhones. Yet Apple killed them off in favor of taking away choices.

Oops... it must have hit a nerve when they kept reading about how many people still want them, even though these same people were very vocal and told Apple not to stop building the small phones. Now the latest rumor being they are bringing the tiny iPhones back. Almost appears like stubbornness then indecision, then they send one of their celebrated stars out to pump up the volume. Apple... what a company

Ok, first off, longtime iPhone customers did not love the small iPhones. Their own market research showed this. The majority put up with the small iPhones. Second, it is heavily rumored that Apple is bringing back the small iPhone for the iPhone 7 for the minority that prefers them. This isn't indecision - it's making a game-plan, running with it, being successful at it, and then analyzing what they can do better. You know, basically what a company is supposed to do. Your vocal minority wasn't really vocal outside of rumor forums. We have this amazing ability to think that we represent the majority of iPhone users when we don't necessarily.

 

[flaw600]

Yes, because Apple would demand a cut of the subscription and Roku doesn't get that.

That's the supposed reason and it's BS. Amazon doesn't have to sell subscriptions through the app. Or it could pull what everyone else is doing and raising the prices 30% to cover the fees, but either way it's still Amazon's problem and an easy solution.

 

[flaw600]

Funny how you mention that as Apple's product lineup is starting to bloat up again under Cook.

What bloat? They've announced one new product and significantly refreshed one other line and are in the processing of replacing one Mac line with another. Adding one product isn't bloat

 

[tongxinshe]

Buy whatever I want?

32GB iPhone please thank you.

Here you go:
http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone5s

Oh, if you want iPhone 6 or iPhone 6s instead, it's more expensive, $649 and $749 respectively, but, as a bonus, you get another 32GB for free.

 

[flaw600]

Then why didn't you let Amazon have an Apple TV app? Not even talking about the ATV4, I mean past Apple TVs too.

EDIT:
Let's get real, Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Wouldn't an Amazon app make the ATV4 the perfect streaming device for years to come until Apple makes more money when people start buying the 4k ATV5 eventually?

Instead, people who want to use Amazon Prime content are forced to use a Fire TV... and to be honest, the Fire TV hits some points the Apple TV fails to address despite the FireTV's UI being unsatisfactory and boring (don't get me started on the app lineup).

I'll reiterate my point because to me it's just plain silly and I don't understand the situation: Apple makes money on hardware, Amazon makes their money on content so wouldn't an Amazon app make perfect sense? Only pitfall I can think of is that they'll lose some sales in movie rentals and purchases -- shouldn't be much though considering Amazon allows streaming via their website + android support.

Have you considered the obvious possibility (and near-certainty with the ATV4) that Amazon didn't want to make an app? As for your edit, Amazon's goal is apparently to create an ecosystem that keeps you buying Amazon content based on their Fire TV, Fire TV Stick, Fire Phone, Kindle, and getting rid of Apple TV's and Chromecasts on their site.

 

[flaw600]

Amazon Fire and Androids aren't the only way to be able to watch Amazon Prime videos. There are plenty of solutions for this:
AirPlay to Apple TV from a Mac or iOS device.
Many smart TVs have the App, as well as PS3 or any other console out there and BluRay players too.

AirPlay isn't a solution - it's a workaround. Smart TV's and consoles have apps because Amazon doesn't build those products (yet?)

 

[flaw600]

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.

The Amazon Video app isn't just for Prime members - others can watch their libraries on the app too. That said, you're right

 

[flaw600]

Well, not entirely. Apple's instance of getting 30% for in-app purchases (which is approximately all the profit available after Amazon pays their providers) has a big thing to do with this.

It's one thing for the cable or TV networks, or Hulu or Netflix, where you can sign up on the web, Apple isn't involved in the financial transaction, and your credit card is automatically dinged once a year.

For Amazon, that doesn't work. They have a choice of an inconvenient service, or financially supporting Apple:

Heroes Reborn went long, so I missed the last two minutes on my TiVo. I went to the Amazon app in the TiVo, clicked a few buttons, put in my purchase pin, bought the episode for $2.99, and watched the last few minutes. To do that on an Apple TV with a hypothetical Amazon app, I'd have to go find my phone or iPad or computer, and use the web. Or, Amazon would have to give all the available profit to Apple.[1]

So I look at this more as an Amazon/Apple feud rather than there being just one bad guy. Amazon has public forums where people are complaining loudly that they're not on Apple TV. Apple isn't so open about that, so I sent them feedback.

I'd get an Apple TV for integration with my computer and music, but I think I'm going to hold out and see what happens with the available content.

---
[1] Oh, and if you get the idea that the TiVo is the Great Unsung Cord-Cutting Device, I at least think it is. If you can get an antenna up, you get a lot of ad-supported TV, plus the major streaming services, plus universal search, plus a system that shows old seasons from streaming and this week's season from on-air. On air shows are not over compressed as cable is. There's a monthly fee, but the base device is as-low-as an Apple TV, and it's easy to upgrade the hard drive.

Or they have the obvious choice of telling people to sign up in a browser, which is what the most popular apps are doing

 

[flaw600]

Yup, this. They're having an awkward negotiation through the media (Apple said Amazon was welcome to join their "conga line" of apps??), making them both look anti-consumer..

I can see two big, related issues:
1. In-app purchases - Amazon probably wants to be able to sell content directly through their app, and without giving a cut to Apple; Apple probably wants to make users go to a separate computer to order Amazon Instant Video in order to drive people toward iTunes as a more convenient option.
2. Universal search - again, I suspect Apple wants to leave out Amazon so that they don't compete with Apple's offerings.

Except there's going to be a Universal Search API that Cook has already said that anyone can use and as for IAP's, like what every other popular app is promoting (albeit letting users sign up in-app for 30% more), promote sign-ups in browser.

 

[tongxinshe]

OK Eddy, how about a 32GB iPhone? Oh, and I'd like to buy it via PayPal direct from Apple.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/06/apple-drops-us-paypal-credit-support/

Try to understand what you say before you say it.

You can still use PayPal to pay at Apple.com, as a result, PayPal Credit as a loan option is still available to you when you buy it. The only change is that Apple no longer single out this loan method in its "financing" section to promote it.