Comments on: Apple to buy Hollywood? Not a chance.

By: SpareFoot

SpareFoot — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:24:19 +0000

“But take a look at the number of Apple TVs that are out there (just 4.2 million) or the connect rate on smart TVs today” … “very few people are actually taking advantage of broadband-delivered video.”

How does a low usage of two streaming solutions point to a low overall usage of broadband-delivered video? This is assuming more popular solutions – Netflix and Hulu Plus for Xbox 360, PS3, iPad, etc. – somehow trend with Apple TV and smart TV usage statistics. Not to mention streaming TV shows straight to the computer. The fact of the matter is that broadband-delivered video is gigantic and Apple’s share of it is small. Perhaps that’s what you meant, but it came off as “broadband-delivered video is still small.”

By: ishekhar

ishekhar — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:30:13 +0000

“Never say never when it comes to Apple.”

Very true. This article analyzes how apple can or can’t fit into the current video marketplace. Something not a typical of Apple.

This content bundling needs to go away among others. I pay $60/month just to get some 10 different channels and 4 of them are free OTA. Reminds me how I was forced to buy a CD even if all I wanted was just one track.

Change the example of $5/channel to 99cents/channel and you would arrive a different conclusion in this article.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:26:28 +0000

I’d definitely pay $5 each for CBS, ABC, and Fox, but NBC would have to pay me to get me to subscribe. I don’t want that trash in my home, which is why I’ve got it removed from my DirecTV channel guide.

$15/month for ESPN? Yawn. $25 for HBO? Why bother, when Netflix and Redbox are a fraction of that? Personally, I’ve asked around, and out of probably 100+ twenty-somethings polled, only two pay for television service. Even a lot of thirty-somethings don’t pay for TV. It’s a waste of money, and the only reason I still have it is because my wife is so insistent.

TV is extremely expensive, and the various providers are stuck in a losing battle: people keep leaving over the high prices, so the providers raise prices to maintain profit. This causes more people to leave, and the cycle repeats ad infinitum. If they don’t change something pretty soon, their few remaining subscribers will all die of old age and TV service as we know it will cease to exist, anyway.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:26:37 +0000

My only comment is that figuring the market for broadband delivery of tv/movie content by the number of Apple TVs out there really lowballs your answer. Apple TV is by far in the minority of ways used to access streaming content.

By: SuperFed

SuperFed — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:40:00 +0000

“But take a look at the number of Apple TVs that are out there (just 4.2 million) or the connect rate on smart TVs today, and you see that very few people are actually taking advantage of broadband-delivered video.”

What about all those iPhones and iPads that can view movies/tv shows?

By: Peter Csathy

Peter Csathy — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:03:36 +0000

Ryan, you, as always, raise good points. But, I respectively disagree. You write that Apple is “not into creating news services.” Well, they single-handedly invented real online music services via iTunes. They forged unprecedented new license deals with the labels, and the rest is history. Yes, those weren’t subscription services, but they were services. And, Apple’s playbook always calls for seamlessly marrying the hardware with underlying services — in this case, the iTV (which most definitely is coming) with compelling premium video content (motion pictures and TV) — to create differentiated “experiences.” Apple will pay significantly more to do this than others (hence the power of their $100 billion war chest), precisely because each customer means much more to Apple than to anyone else due to Apple’s eco-system of products. Once someone becomes enters the kingdom of Apple (by buying an iTV, as one example), then they never leave — they buy iPads, iPhones, iTouches, iAccessories. That’s the point, it’s not just the TV they would be monetizing. It’s the monetization that uniquely comes with have a closed eco-system of products and services — things no one else can match. THAT’s why Apple will pay for the content it needs to pull this off. The real question becomes — will the music and TV studio execs have the will to extract the most value from Apple during licensing negotiations? So far they have said “no” — and, so far, they are not repeating their actions from the past from the music business (in which they allowed Apple to set the rules of the content licensing game).

Peter Csathy
President & CEO of online video company Sorenson Media
(& former President of online music pioneer Musicmatch (where we licensed music from the lables) and 10 years at the studios (where we licensed content to others)

By: bguest

bguest — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:00:58 +0000

Why pay them? If they quit, there are billions in line to take their place. Besides, most Americans don’t have a problem with China being union-free so long as it keeps price lower for ipad and iphone.

By: Len Feldman

Len Feldman — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:03:24 +0000

Perhaps it’s a romantic notion, but the one entertainment company that Apple might invest in is Disney. With the sale of Pixar to Disney, Steve Jobs became Disney’s single largest shareholder, and there have been rumors that Jobs’ heirs may want to sell their stake in Disney. By having Apple purchase the shares of Disney owned by Jobs’ heirs, it would create a permanent link between the two companies. But, I agree that it’s extremely unlikely that Apple would buy operating control of any media company.

By: Darryell Randle

Darryell Randle — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:15:00 +0000

Never say never when it comes to Apple.

By: Ryan Lawler

Ryan Lawler — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:52:43 +0000

Frankly, I don’t buy the reports that Apple is interested. Apple has never paid upfront for content, doesn’t need to do so to increase sales of its devices, and is doing pretty damn well as an agnostic platform provider for others to offer their content on.

Maybe it’s trying to convince EPL to create an app, but highly doubt it’s actually looking to license that content.