Thats party why cable became so popular in the 1980’s. People were craving content without canned laughter or phoney dramas where everyone hugged at the end and made up.
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.
iTunes Chief Eddy Cue: Apple Execs Don't Make Notes on Apple TV+ Scripts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thats party why cable became so popular in the 1980’s. People were craving content without canned laughter or phoney dramas where everyone hugged at the end and made up.
Apple could/should have bought Pluto TV as that would have got their foot in the door along with streaming etc.
He's in charge of the two ex-Sony employees that he lets have "free reign" because they are "the experts". I can't for one minute believe he can resist putting his fingers in the pot.
Yes. Well put.
Couple thoughts in response, though. One, perhaps we'll see Apple eventually buy an outside company in order to have their own content library that could be used in Apple TV+ (and potentially other ways). There aren't that many options available now, really. I'd say Disney, AT&T (WarnerMedia), and Comcast (NBCUniversal) are all too big/problematic. I suppose CBS is an option, although they're about to swallow Viacom, then probably Lionsgate (Starz), then possibly AMC and/or MGM. That leaves Sony, the company whose TV execs Apple wooed away to launch Apple TV+. I think there are a lot of synergies between Sony and Apple, not only in Sony Pictures (movies & TV libraries), but also Sony Music label, the PS Vue streaming cable TV service, their consumer electronics (mainly high-quality TVs that could run tvOS rather than Android TV, plus digital cameras/imaging), and their PlayStation gaming division. There are bits of Sony that Apple would want to spin off but most of it makes sense as an acquisition, I think.
Other thought: Apple TV Channels, those add-on third-party subscriptions that live natively within Apple's TV app, are populated by what I would call "second-tier" streaming services. I don't mean that in terms of their content quality but rather because they're not major services that were "born digital," namely Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video. Instead, they're hybrid traditional/digital services like HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, Epix, Sundance Now, and more niche offerings like Acorn TV, PBS Living, etc.
But what happens if the biggest of those second-tier services evolve into major digital-first competitors to Netflix and Hulu? Perhaps they will no longer allow all of their content to be subsumed within Apple's UI. Perhaps eventually, like Netflix, they'll no longer even allow new subscriptions to begin inside their own app on Apple devices in order to avoid paying a 20-30% cut to Apple. The first second-tier services that could go that route are HBO and Cinemax, which are rumored to be combined (along with a lot more new and old WarnerMedia content) into "HBO Max" this fall. It will be interesting to see if the new HBO Max service participates in Apple TV Channels.
And what about CBS and its services? CBS All Access isn't yet part of Apple TV Channels but supposedly will be soon. But CBS is also on the verge of remerging with Viacom, which owns a lot of content, cable channels and the free ad-supported Pluto TV streaming app. It's not hard to imagine a lot of those newly acquired assets getting rolled into CBS All Access to make it more of a direct competitor to Hulu with Live TV. Especially if it offers all of Pluto TV's live ad-supported streaming channels, you can see how the company would want users to come directly into their own app rather than through Apple's UI in the TV app. And CBS has also put out a bid to buy Starz, the #3 premium service, which could easily be combined with CBS's own Showtime, the #2 premium, to create a new premium streaming powerhouse. Maybe it won't want or need Apple TV Channels.
Beyond those existing services, will we see the upcoming Disney+ or next year's NBCU on-demand service distributed through Apple TV Channels? My bet is no, we won't.
In the end, all of the largest streaming services are going to want subscribers to spend time inside their own apps (providing useful data) and, if possible, they'll want to cut out the distribution middle-men (like Apple and Amazon and Roku) so that they can retain as much of their subscription profits as possible. Is it possible that come 2022, the largest offering available in Apple TV Channels is Epix?
Last edited:
Of course you can’t. But then again, you also called Cue “head of programming” so it could be you actually have no idea what’s happening inside Apple.
Money is only one small part of the equation. There have been rumors that Amazon is shuttering their video service soon due to overspending on shows that people just aren't watching anyway.
I think it would make way more sense for Apple to purchase only the subsidiary Sony Pictures, rather than Sony in its entirety. A lot less expensive, and you avoid the massive DOJ antitrust issues with the hardware technology overlap between Sony and Apple. Apple has no use for Sony beyond its film/tv studio division, and Sony might not have as strong an interest over its Sony Pictures sub.
Is there any idea of what this will COST? I already pay 10 bucks for music and 10 bucks for storage. I tried out the magazine and news Plus but that sucked. As it is, Apple gets $20 a month in recurring fees from me.
Can't believe it's gonna be $10 a month for a FEW shows, right????
Can't believe it's gonna be $10 a month for a FEW shows, right????
My impression based on what Apple has put out in the past is that the shows will initially be free, or will be free if you buy an Apple TV+ package - which will consist of a bundle of channels, such as HBO, Showtime, or Disney+. Basically, you buy a bundle through Apple rather than individually in their own apps, and Apple incentivizes that by offering their shows with the package.
If you want an example of this in action, check out VRV. It's a Warner Bros. owned content bundle for $9.99 which offers 12 channels which are normally sold individually, such as Shudder (normally $4.99), Nickelodeon, Rooster Teeth, etc. Additionally, when you buy the $9.99 bundle, VRV throws in their own "VRV select" content like Harmonquest, which can only be viewed when you buy the bundle. This is what I see Apple doing, only with mainstream channels like CBS, etc., rather than nerd-centric content.
Edit: I think what's happening now is that Apple is trying to get deals together between the streaming services to see if bundles can be discounted (i.e., $50 of value for $20, etc.). They are also probably hammering out the different mixes of content that will appeal to consumers (sports packages; premium content packages, with HBO+Showtime+Starz; family packages - Disney+, VRV; Mystery/Thriller packages - AcornTV+Britbox+Sundance Now). It would be hard to offer "build it yourself" bundles where you pick only the channels you want and the fee changes automatically based on what you add in.
I’ll agree content providers want you in their app and not Apples/Roku/Firestick but that means you either provide an app for those devices or you release hardware yourself. Producing shows, developing an app AND making and selling hardware is a lot of overhead for very little gain. Make the shows and maybe the app -maybe not if you are a smaller provider- and let someone else handle the low profit margin hardware end.
Literally just made that up.
Amazon is not shuttering it’s video service. Don’t spread completely false rumors.
Sorry I simplified the org structure too much for you. I didn’t know you had such an intimate knowledge of Apple’s inner workings
I don't see how they can do bundles in Apple TV+ without Apple subsidizing some of the cost. The amount of users currently in the Apple TV ecosystem is paltry compared to its competitors.
Apple has the money to subsidize it.
Also - other content aggregators have found ways to make it work, see VRV.
Also - see News+, $9.99 for a ton of magazines.
VRV is niche content though
And News+ is not doing as well as publishers hope. Apple is not subsidizing the cost there and is taking 50% from publishers. Also, publishers do not have access to as much behavioral data as if they managed it themselves
I see streamers opting in these kinds of streaming aggregators in the future. With the advent of all the new services later this year and beyond, streamers will have to return to the bundling method and will take a price cut to ensure they are included. Maybe HBO still charges a premium, but if you look at the list of channels, many of them can be bundled. See Acorn, PBS, Tastemade, MTV, DC Universe, Sundance, Epix, Smithsonian, Lifetime Movie Club, UMC etc., etc.,
Having worked for several major streamer aggregators, all I will say is there is a reason why A/B grade content isn’t really aggregated and only niche content is.
Netflix is only stating they will control their content through their app. However, they have made their shows available to be discovered in the TV app, and that does not contradict their statement. They simply won't give Apple free reign access, but they have given the endpoints for indexing through their app (thus still controlling the content through their app). -- Netflix is more available in the TV app, than say Plex is. There are many apps that aren't even available to search through the TV app, and Netflix previously was one of them.
This is really just an "available to search" versus "available to stream" situation.
Where I never claimed it was available to stream, I simply said it's available. But "how" it's available continues to being pointlessly contested. It's obvious that you and others don't consider it "available" if it can't be streamed directly, while I was addressing it being available to be discovered. However, it's like people are debating "my perception of 'available' is more real than yours." lol. When there's many levels and contexts of availability.
Ultimately, even before when the TV app had the vision of being the central hub, people still had to go to many apps to specifically search and try to find something to watch. Then they had to remember what looked good, and try to pick from the various apps they searched, what they wanted to watch. Now that Netflix shows are available to discover in the TV app, Netflix has ensured that they will not be left out of that flow. Which is the entire point. Their users won't be jumping ship, because they'll see Netflix as an available option and use it, rather than instead playing it on a competing service that's more convenient to discover shows on.
Last edited:
Simple test.
If you have Netflix and and Apple TV, start a Netflix show on Apple TV.
Then switch to TV App.
If the Netflix show does not appear in WatchNow then it is not part of the TV App.
The search feature in the TV App is available everywhere, using Siri.
I can go to Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBOGo and use Siri search for the show Stranger Things and launch it.
It appears just like it does in the TV App search icon.
Netflix didn't do anything new here, their content has been searchable for a while.
Its the same search of you use Siri or the other gray search icon available on ATV.
Your Plex analogy is not relevant either.
Plex is not a searchable item.
The Plex forum explains why.
Apple doesn't consider Netflix part of the TV App.
Netflix says it won't be part of the TV App (for now).
Your definition of what is part of the TV App is irrelevant as it is not recognized by anyone but you as a valid claim.
Last edited:
Sorry but I've heard it on several podcasts. Yes, it was a rumor that I am spreading which is why I said it was a rumor. I tried Googling for more details on the rumor but the only things that come up are technical support issues regarding Amazon's streaming service failing to connect or stream properly.
No problem! Apology accepted
Apple TV+ is just one of the many services that Cue oversees; he’s a busy guy. Kim Rozenfeld is head of current programming.