Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You've posted an interesting discussion about the Apple-as-TV-Studio concept. But there's a lot of variables in that. For one, they've had all this time where they could bypass the music company middlemen so that artists could publish directly to the iTunes music store and collect all of the money for their music. They could have monetized the whole podcast/vodcast thing by turning on paid subscriptions so that those "shows" could be monetized. Either or both would have been a great proving ground to see if cutting out the "greedy studios" by connecting artists directly to the buying public could fly. But they didn't. So why start with television?

Becoming a studio involves all kinds of other variables. Buying one would be much easier than starting one from scratch. However, what makes studios go now is the existing model of commercials and cable subscriptions. What "we" often describe as what we want in some new Apple television model is commercial-free and subscriptions that cost a fraction of what we pay now. Revenues from commercials running on 200 channels "I" never watch is HUGE. Us paying $70/month, $100/month or more is also HUGE. When you kill the commercials and dramatically cut the monthly fee, lots of money that makes it all go disappears.

Apple likes to make a LOT of profit. The "new model" that "we" generally covet seems like a change to a highly unprofitable model. One might say, "But Apple productions would only be higher quality programming that "we" would all want to buy." But even the best producers, directors, etc on the planet have flops. Often there's lots of flops between the occasional hits. That's the big risk in the whole machine- a place where a lot of that revenue goes and is burned for almost nothing… until one of those nothings becomes a (hit) something. Take the sum total of all that the studios have learned from all of the years they've been in business and identify any one that is consistently a hits (only) factory. How does Apple Studio come in without revenues from commercials and with only a fraction of the money from "our" much cheaper subscription rates for "only the shows I want to watch" and do what all of the long-established Studios haven't been able to do?

Yes, Apple has sometimes seemed magical when it jumps on a new line. Would even Apple's very, very best be able to crank out hit after hit in the "new model" fantasy?

Very good points.

Again, as already mentioned, I don't know much on how to run a TV Channels; so I might don't see the whole pictures. I'm just commenting and speculating from a consumer point of view.

So, why Apple didn't do it for music and podcast before and they would start to do it for TV now? Probably because the music market was dying and Apple came as saver and they got the big 3 or 4 top major labels onboard for iTunes, therefor they could easily distribute 80% of the music on the market.

The TV is another world. They should convinced ABC, CBS, Fox, etc...etc... and that would be valid "only" for the US. And then they would have to negotiate the same way with BBC, Sky, etc... for the UK,... and then TF1, M6, Canal, etc... for France,... again and again. And each channels would have to negotiate for distribution for a country that wouldn't be available for others, etc... That's quite complexe.

The problem of having "good" content that have success is the same problem for anyone. But so far, it looks pretty good for Netflix; and that's exactly what they're doing... Why Apple couldn't?

Also, on another note, I do believe Apple never enter in the game to be a Label because of Apple Records... But I remember that they finally solve this issue, so it would be all good now (I might think).

One last thing... The whole Cable extravagant price per month (such $70-$100+ per month) is mainly in the US. If you go compare prices with other countries (such some in Europe), you would be very surprised.

For instance, you can easily get a Triple Play (Unlimited Phone, 200 channels TV and 20 to 100 Mbits Internet, depending if you can get fiber or DSL)... for no more than 30€/m (which is pretty much equivalent to $30/m because conversion doesn't really apply there).

ISP in Europe are pretty much "data transporter" and it even doesn't matter if you have 10 channel or 200. And they do it that way because they know the new generation don't care about TV anymore, they just go watch online whatever they want. Because of that, most of TV Channels do provide a way to watch (or re-watch) online now. Even in the US, we start to see that with specific iOS app.

So it could just be one step further to have them completely integrated... but in that case, why Apple would start to deal directly with the Content Producers instead of the current TV Channels that serve as a middle man?

What makes ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FX, etc... good for a customer? It's not the way they handle Ads, or broadcast content... it's pretty much the content they have.

If the next Show such "Walking Dead", or "Breaking Bad", or "Whatevershowyoulikethemost" if produce and distributed by "Apple Studio" instead of ... let's say ABC Studios. What difference would it make and how different would it be with Netflix currently producing "House of Cards" (a first non-TV Show that won 3 Emmys)?

And again, I'm only talking about Shows here and "Apple Studio", but I'm convinced that to get the whole picture, it has to come down also with something like "iTunes Live", to allow to watch live event (and re-stream them later).

I have an idea on how it could work, but it would be way too long post and comment for here... And I also might be just completely WRONG about everything, LOL.

So, wait & see :)
 
The Facts

* Apple has previously only ever purchased startups with valuable IP… or the patent portfolios of bankrupt giants.

* Beats will be Apple’s largest ever acquisition… by far.

* Beats has little or no IP that would be of value to Apple… apart from its brand.

* Apple has been bleeding market share… almost exclusively at the youth/budget end of the market.

* Apple’s recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apple’s unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apple’s loyal customers were only interested in a premium product… the iPhone 5s.

My Speculation

* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus… and Beats being Toyota.

* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services… iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).

* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic… and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range… but they will be cool… very, very cool. Apple’s know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.

* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.

* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices… and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30… and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet… the will be locked into the Apple eco-system… and buy an iPhone 11s.

* It makes sense that Apple’s largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apple’s biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.

One of the better theories I've read to date.
 
If this is Apple's future with ghetto brand acquisitions and gigantic phones I'm starting to regret having just spend several thousand dollars on making the switch to the biotope.
That's even worse now than the trust fund hippie Starbucks crowd.

#missmyblackberryandibmthinkpad
 
PS: If they want to produce good TV Shows, what they need is to get onboard people like: JJ Abrams, Shonda Rhimes, Chuck Lorre, Howard Gordon, Vince Gilligan, Bill Lawrence, David Chase, Aaron Sorkin... and few others and they should be fine :)
 
Time will tell on whether the rights are transferrable. Obviously the deal makes more sense if they are. Not sure it makes no sense otherwise, just less.
Unless these contracts are very long term, I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes-- it becomes the same question as why Apple doesn't by Netflix for the content rights. Whatever rights they buy now will eventually need to be renegotiated.

I think it's clear that the big content providers like a fragmented delivery infrastructure. The music industry tested the waters with Apple because they thought Apple was going to be a bit player in the end, and then woke up a couple years later to realize they'd created a monster with enormous leverage over negotiations.

The entertainment industries don't want that to happen with streaming or video content, so they give some to Netflix, some to Amazon, some to Apple, some to Spotify, etc. I'm sure Apple realizes that if they don't have the long term industry relationships, then having the short term contracts isn't going to help them.

That said, this just doesn't feel like an Apple type deal to me. Have there been other big deals like this that have gotten advance attention and turned out to be true?

The old Apple would have killed this on principle after Dre took to YouTube about it.
 
What is your "access" to dismiss his speculation out of hand? And what other insights has Isaacson been incorrect on? This is a serious question. If he is so off base, please enlighten the rest of us.

Check out this episode of Hypercritical for info on everything wrong with Isaacson as an "expert"

John Siracusa lays out all the problems with him pretty well.

http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42

"John Siracusa and Dan Benjamin discuss Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs. Topics include Isaacson's failings as an author and biographer, the technical cluelessness on display in the book, and Steve Jobs, Enemy of Progress."

The old Apple would have killed this on principle after Dre took to YouTube about it.
Amen to that.
 
The Facts

* Apple has previously only ever purchased startups with valuable IP… or the patent portfolios of bankrupt giants.

* Beats will be Apple’s largest ever acquisition… by far.

* Beats has little or no IP that would be of value to Apple… apart from its brand.

* Apple has been bleeding market share… almost exclusively at the youth/budget end of the market.

* Apple’s recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apple’s unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apple’s loyal customers were only interested in a premium product… the iPhone 5s.

My Speculation

* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus… and Beats being Toyota.

* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services… iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).

* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic… and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range… but they will be cool… very, very cool. Apple’s know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.

* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.

* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices… and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30… and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet… the will be locked into the Apple eco-system… and buy an iPhone 11s.

* It makes sense that Apple’s largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apple’s biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.

I like your ability to think outside the box. Its a plausible theory indeed.
 
Apple really needs an old music industry geezer to completely go off the rails.
All the American Idol music you can choke on.:mad:
 
The Facts

* Apple has previously only ever purchased startups with valuable IP… or the patent portfolios of bankrupt giants.

* Beats will be Apple’s largest ever acquisition… by far.

* Beats has little or no IP that would be of value to Apple… apart from its brand.

* Apple has been bleeding market share… almost exclusively at the youth/budget end of the market.

* Apple’s recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apple’s unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apple’s loyal customers were only interested in a premium product… the iPhone 5s.

My Speculation

* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus… and Beats being Toyota.

* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services… iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).

* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic… and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range… but they will be cool… very, very cool. Apple’s know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.

* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.

* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices… and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30… and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet… the will be locked into the Apple eco-system… and buy an iPhone 11s.

* It makes sense that Apple’s largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apple’s biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.

Interesting but I don't buy the premise. I don't think Apple is suffering at all in the youth market. You could say they're suffering in the low end market but they haven't entered it yet and that's where your theory is interesting. But every market survey I've read has apple growing with teens faster than any other brand or phone.
 
What is your "access" to dismiss his speculation out of hand? And what other insights has Isaacson been incorrect on? This is a serious question. If he is so off base, please enlighten the rest of us.
You need to learn to do your own research. Issacson's level of understanding is well known.
 
I agree with all of this... Apple has hired some TV folks in the last couple years. For a guy like Jimmy Iovine, who has also done deals with the tv and movie industry, makes total sense. I said the same thing when the acquisition was speculated in this forum.

Apple needs to become and will become a media company... And eventually one day an ISP...
 
Unless these contracts are very long term, I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes-- it becomes the same question as why Apple doesn't by Netflix for the content rights. Whatever rights they buy now will eventually need to be renegotiated.

I think it's clear that the big content providers like a fragmented delivery infrastructure. The music industry tested the waters with Apple because they thought Apple was going to be a bit player in the end, and then woke up a couple years later to realize they'd created a monster with enormous leverage over negotiations.

The entertainment industries don't want that to happen with streaming or video content, so they give some to Netflix, some to Amazon, some to Apple, some to Spotify, etc. I'm sure Apple realizes that if they don't have the long term industry relationships, then having the short term contracts isn't going to help them.

That said, this just doesn't feel like an Apple type deal to me. Have there been other big deals like this that have gotten advance attention and turned out to be true?

The old Apple would have killed this on principle after Dre took to YouTube about it.

The old Apple was Steve of course, and Steve's principles could be a little twisted. Nobody spoiled Steve's surprises without paying a price for it. It is just possible that Tim Cook feels more or less the same way, which perhaps is why we haven't seen the official announcement of the acquisition yet. The message Cook might be putting to Dre is that if you want to be part of Apple, you need to live by Apple's rules. Apple Rule Number One is nobody says anything about what the company is doing until it is made official, and Apple Rule Number Two is to refer to Apple Rule Number One.

Good points about the content contracts. I am also having a difficult time seeing them being as the key to the Beat deal. It just doesn't seem like enough.
 
Who the hell cares about this guy anymore? Why are people still interviewing him like he is some expert on Apple? He wasn't even an expert on Steve Jobs and he had years to get to know him! Every time Isaacson's name comes up in relation to Apple I just shake my head and think, "how long is he going to keep cashing in on another man's tragedy?"
Exactly. I now have a very low opinion of this man. Wonder how many more times he'll say "oh, one more thing Jobs told me that I didn't put in the book." Reeks of desperation and limelight seeking. Not to mention, he's stating the obvious. Apple bought a company and probably most of the employees at Beats.
 
Shameless, Modern Family, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, True Detective, Penny Dreadful, New Girl, The Daily Show, The Americans, The Late Late Show, Louie, The Colbert Report, South Park, Fargo, The Walking Dead.

Just a taste of some great shows from the top of my head that nothing on YouTube can touch. It's not my fault that you think the only thing on TV is Jersey Shore.

Can anyone shed some light on how content deals work? If Apple approached CBS or any other channel for that matter, and said we want to broadcast your channel on Apple TV, what would be the network's motivation to say NO. Wouldn't they increase viewership. Also, you would think it would be better for the networks as Apple could "force" people to watch the commercials, instead of DVRing through them. If AMC owns the rights to the Walking Dead, can't they allow Apple to broadcast the show for a fee, just like the cable companies and dish companies do? Anyone know about content deals and why Apple is having trouble securing rights?
 
Step 1: Buy Netflix
.......
That is the only step needed for Apple to regain its foothold in media.

Music is a dying medium and video is the next revolution.
Apple has fallen behind in this arena.

Still no AppleTV
Still no 4K
Still no subscription service
Still no Apps
Still no modern UI
 
I like your ability to think outside the box. Its a plausible theory indeed.

As far as I'm aware, see original idea here (post #11)

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1734727/

It's not something I have seen suggested so far but I have been wondering whether part of the reason for purchasing beats is to use the brand for launching a slightly lower end phone that appeals to a different part of the market. A Beats phone would run ios, and wouldn't be branded apple in any way other than the software. It would allow for a lower end, lower quality product without potentially damaging apples brand. It would be as close as possible to licensing ios without losing control.
 
That is one expensive acquihire. Even Steve Jobs didn't cost that much.

Well, Apple paid 500 million $ for a company that was on the red financially, without success, for a guy that was a previous failure. It came out well.

Beats is highly profitable, will pay itself and has great connections.
 
So, your analysis is that Apple is really doing this to get access to Dr. Dre? Got it.

Not a chance, just a bit of sarcasm. There's more than a few potential interpretations, but overall it's just plain odd. What are they thinking?
 
The one thing I learned from this website, and forum specifically, is that everyone thinks they know whats best for Apple. And then I laugh...
 
I can't help but think this guy is Poochie for Apple

8803405_orig.gif
 
The Facts

* Apple has previously only ever purchased startups with valuable IP… or the patent portfolios of bankrupt giants.

* Beats will be Apple’s largest ever acquisition… by far.

* Beats has little or no IP that would be of value to Apple… apart from its brand.

* Apple has been bleeding market share… almost exclusively at the youth/budget end of the market.

* Apple’s recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apple’s unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apple’s loyal customers were only interested in a premium product… the iPhone 5s.

My Speculation

* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus… and Beats being Toyota.

* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services… iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).

* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic… and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range… but they will be cool… very, very cool. Apple’s know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.

* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.

* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices… and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30… and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet… the will be locked into the Apple eco-system… and buy an iPhone 11s.

* It makes sense that Apple’s largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apple’s biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.

The first fact you should have mentioned is that you are very confused and misinformed.

1. Whether Beats will have any IP value to Apple is arguable, at the end of the day it made sense to Apple. You have little to no information whether the deal is worth it or not, and how it actually benefits Apple...

2. iPhone 5c my friend is a 2+ year old phone that is being sold for almost the same price as the iPhone 5 when it first came out. It has the same specs as the 5, just a different case size and the addition of colors. If you look at just the numbers sold vs. the 5s, of course the flagship 5s will outsell it, but when you consider Apple is selling a phone with technology that has practically paid for itself from previous iterations, it equates to a high profit. 5c is not just a low end phone targeted towards kids or poor people, its a phone with colors, simply something different. They didnt market the 5c to be a low end device, because it simply isnt...

3. Apple is not a budget brand. There is nothing budget about it.

4. Beats is NOT a budget brand. It isnt targeted towards youth, they target young adults and upper age brackets. A "youth" is not able to afford Beats by any means.

5. Your Lexus-Toyota analogy is poor. Apple never really had a premium headphone that it could officially pair for their devices. Sure they sold Beats alongside their phones, but there was nothing Apple about them, i.e. similar color patterns and designs. Again, only Apple currently knows the benefits of the acquisition.

6. The fight with Google and Samsung comment made no absolutely no sense. Beats has nothing to do with either of those brands, besides having the music streaming service. If anything, it will strengthen Apple's presence in the music industry, which only slightly puts it behind Google, but not enough to have any serious effect.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.