New Apple TV Likely Delayed Until 2015 Due to Negotiation Difficulties

[MrX8503]

The iTMS added a couple wrinkles but the basic model was unchanged. Artists singed with labels to fund their albums. The labels partnered with retailers (from Apple to Walmart) to sell those albums/singles to customers and everyone got a cut of each sale. The record labels just had to get over the concept of legit digital deliveries while they were still in the heat of fighting illegitimate digital deliveries.

iTunes changed the music industry. Period.

I'm not saying TV's model can't be changed because it is changing. I'm saying that the change happening in TV land is exponentially larger than what happened in the music industry. The entire history of the industry is about getting people to tune into a certain channel at a certain time to watch a certain show. The more people you get to do that the more money you make. Now there's a push to let people watch on any device at any time and that completely torpedoes their business model which has been maturing for the last 70 years or so. Many companies try and straddle this line by not allowing streamers to see shows until they day after they have aired.



For a quick and dirty analogy, if the music industry was like the TV industry then retailers (Walmart, Target, Amazon, Apple, etc.,) would be their own record label and retail store wrapped into one. The music wouldn't be sold but given away to the public as an incentive to shop at their store. If Walmart made music for the explicit purpose of getting people to shop at Walmart how keen would Walmart be about making its music available to Target shoppers?

I don't care how big TV is, it just needs to get done. Apple is good at doing the impossible. With Steve Jobs gone, I think the TV market he dreamt of is gone along with him.

 

[LethalWolfe]

iTunes changed the music industry. Period.

Yeah, it did, but it didn't change the basic business model. Also, what Apple did with music is not easily replicated with broadcast and cable/sat TV for reasons I've already mentioned.

I don't care how big TV is, it just needs to get done.

Whether or not you care about the facts doesn't change the facts. It's not about TV being 'big' it's about TV having a fundamentally different business model than selling music. Square peg, round hole.

Apple is good at doing the impossible. With Steve Jobs gone, I think the TV market he dreamt of is gone along with him.

Is Apple good at doing the impossible or is it now impossible since Jobs is dead?

 

[MrX8503]

Yeah, it did, but it didn't change the basic business model. Also, what Apple did with music is not easily replicated with broadcast and cable/sat TV for reasons I've already mentioned.







Whether or not you care about the facts doesn't change the facts. It's not about TV being 'big' it's about TV having a fundamentally different business model than selling music. Square peg, round hole.





Is Apple good at doing the impossible or is it now impossible since Jobs is dead?

I don't think you get it. People didn't think the music industry would change but it did. I think the the TV would have changed too if Steve Jobs was still around. Doubters like yourself is the reason why things don't change.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think you get it. People didn't think the music industry would change but it did. I think the the TV would have changed too if Steve Jobs was still around. Doubters like yourself is the reason why things don't change.

Doubter? I've spent the better part of six years creating original video content for new media distribution (websites, Netflix, iTunes, Xbox Live, etc.,) and about as much time working on content that went the traditional distribution route (OTA TV, cable/sat) so I think I get it.

The only thing I doubt is the general publics understanding of the situation which is why I try and talk about why the changes happening in the TV industry now are dramatically different, and significantly more complex, than the changes that happened in the music industry 10yrs ago. As much as people complain I think the change is actually going at a decent clip. I haven't had cable for nearly 5 years and besides some live sports and premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.,) I rarely have a problem watching what I want just using OTA TV, Netflix, Amazon and Hulu (and occasionally Redbox).

 

[MrX8503]

Doubter? I've spent the better part of six years creating original video content for new media distribution (websites, Netflix, iTunes, Xbox Live, etc.,) and about as much time working on content that went the traditional distribution route (OTA TV, cable/sat) so I think I get it.

The only thing I doubt is the general publics understanding of the situation which is why I try and talk about why the changes happening in the TV industry now are dramatically different, and significantly more complex, than the changes that happened in the music industry 10yrs ago. As much as people complain I think the change is actually going at a decent clip. I haven't had cable for nearly 5 years and besides some live sports and premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.,) I rarely have a problem watching what I want just using OTA TV, Netflix, Amazon and Hulu (and occasionally Redbox).

Considering what Apple has been able to accomplish, I think they could have changed TV in a big way if Steve Jobs was still around. I acknowledge that TV is a more complex landscape, but that shouldn't stop anyone from pushing the TV industry forward.

 

[mantan]

Considering what Apple has been able to accomplish, I think they could have changed TV in a big way if Steve Jobs was still around. I acknowledge that TV is a more complex landscape, but that shouldn't stop anyone from pushing the TV industry forward.

As great as Steve Jobs was, I think your vastly overrated his ability to influence the TV industry.

The music industry was in peril. Their delivery system was broken and Steve delivered a way to effectively bring music to the digital age.

The TV industry is thriving. The networks are making money hand over fist. While there are some alternate content delivery systems....it's nothing like the Napster scare the music industry faced. And there isn't a real mainstream threat of getting first run network shows or sports out in a bootleg fashion yet.

The main content consumers have is that they pay too much for the relatively few channels they enjoy. The problem is those guaranteed subscriber rates in network bundles float the content for all channels. Everybody's pooled money pays for different programming tastes.

So to fix this problem, Apple would have to propose a system where networks get an equal revenue stream...or don't threaten their current revenue stream, while allowing Apple to get their cut. (You didn't think Apple was doing this out of the good their heart did you?)

As popular as Apple is, there is no way they can deliver a content subscriber base similar to the cable/satellite networks unless they come up with one helluva value proposition. And having people pay for 'what they eat' from a content perspective isn't going to do it. Instead of paying $150 for 500 channels and only wanting 20....you'd still pay $120 for the 20 you like.

The cable/satellite industry is often portrayed as the 'bad guy' here, but they actually spend a LOT of their resources trying to keep content prices down. How many standoffs have we seen between cable/satellite providers and networks for trying to hike subscriber fees?

One could argue the networks could try to leverage Apple as another distribution system....but the problem still comes in that they don't have the subscriber base/delivery system to make it a legitimate option.

Steve was well respected in the entertainment industry.....but there was no magic wand he was going to wave to fix this problem.

 

[MrX8503]

As great as Steve Jobs was, I think your vastly overrated his ability to influence the TV industry.



The music industry was in peril. Their delivery system was broken and Steve delivered a way to effectively bring music to the digital age.



The TV industry is thriving. The networks are making money hand over fist. While there are some alternate content delivery systems....it's nothing like the Napster scare the music industry faced. And there isn't a real mainstream threat of getting first run network shows or sports out in a bootleg fashion yet.



The main content consumers have is that they pay too much for the relatively few channels they enjoy. The problem is those guaranteed subscriber rates in network bundles float the content for all channels. Everybody's pooled money pays for different programming tastes.



So to fix this problem, Apple would have to propose a system where networks get an equal revenue stream...or don't threaten their current revenue stream, while allowing Apple to get their cut. (You didn't think Apple was doing this out of the good their heart did you?)



As popular as Apple is, there is no way they can deliver a content subscriber base similar to the cable/satellite networks unless they come up with one helluva value proposition. And having people pay for 'what they eat' from a content perspective isn't going to do it. Instead of paying $150 for 500 channels and only wanting 20....you'd still pay $120 for the 20 you like.



The cable/satellite industry is often portrayed as the 'bad guy' here, but they actually spend a LOT of their resources trying to keep content prices down. How many standoffs have we seen between cable/satellite providers and networks for trying to hike subscriber fees?



One could argue the networks could try to leverage Apple as another distribution system....but the problem still comes in that they don't have the subscriber base/delivery system to make it a legitimate option.



Steve was well respected in the entertainment industry.....but there was no magic wand he was going to wave to fix this problem.

Trust me, cable/satellite companies aren't losing sleep over spending "a lot" of resources. More and more people are cutting the cord every year. It'll be a slow death, but I don't think cable TV will be around forever.