5 ms·

I think they're fine with sharing their platform with as many other services as want to be on there -- and that play by their rules. I think there are two clue

by zach 15y ago

I think they're fine with sharing their platform with as many other services as want to be on there -- and that play by their rules. I think there are two clues to Apple's approach: 1. They're clearly evolving their offering towards purchasing -- notably, they just killed TV show rentals. Why stop offering rentals of TV shows, as unpopular as they may be? This was a major selling point of the ATV last year. It seems like they're laying the foundation for their fall announcement, but they had to do this a little early because the fall season starts soon. I presume that the announcement will be that they're leaving everything but purchases and movie rentals to the world of ATV apps. Movie rental I think they are still trying to evolve against the studio's feet-dragging. But TV shows are essential to an app store, so the new deal will be: You want to watch a TV show? Buy it or get the app. No confusing in-between option. Apple hates in-between options. 2. Their subscription policy. I think they definitely wanted to pick something that worked for the Apple TV as well. The brouhaha over those rules has subsided for now. But it's a lot harder to tell people to go buy or subscribe to something over the web when they're just sitting in front of an Apple TV. That's way more friction. You might as well tell them to call an 800 number. I think that's something that makes an Apple TV app store viable -- you almost have to have that rule, whereas it seemed kind of excessive on traditional iOS devices. And yes, they want you to buy movies and music only from Apple, but on iOS they have no problem with people using Pandora or Netflix or HBO apps which they get no money for. Because they're services, just like Netflix and the sports channels you mention. But on AppleTV, there will probably be more takers for the 30% split and Apple may go with a subscription-only model (i.e. no one-time-purchase apps at all). This is presuming they only allow video-based apps (wot, no Angry Birds?!?) that you could just call "channels". That is, very similar to the existing ATV apps. In fact, I think a secondary reason that Apple even created the new Netflix app, new YouTube app and sports apps is to work out and test the AppleTV's API and design. I presume they'll still be around in a new-look ATV in the same way that the YouTube app is still on every iOS device -- Apple doesn't like to lose control. They're just going to be the founding members of a club of thousands.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
We're not that far off; I think that is something Apple would do. But that's Apple going directly to content producers and making deals with them. That's not something Amazon, Hulu, Veoh, or Crackle could ever be part of (Netflix probably would get grandfathered in). Those are other middle men. Apple wants to be the middle man. It's a really tough sell though. Right now Starz or ABC or whoever can create a subscription channel on Roku, X-Box, Playstation, and I highly doubt they would have to pay anywhere near 30% (My guess is that those platforms are happy to have the content, and allow the apps for free).
- zach 15y ago
  I think a lot of companies would stick with subscribe-outside apps. Again, same rules as the iPad, so that's okay. Netflix and Hulu would for sure. But: There are 200,000,000 iTunes accounts with credit cards. I really can't fault the established video subscription services for keeping at it, but wow. Can they really resist the power of the App Store? Now, the interesting thing happens outside of the mainstream. If you're Major League Lacrosse, or a yet-to-launch uncensored rap video channel, or SOAPnet (ABC's soap opera channel that a month ago curiously backtracked on their February 2012 announced end date), CurlTV (an online live curling video site that folded earlier this year) or one of many other special interest channels (actual or potential), you're really interested in becoming a subscription channel on Apple TV. Just imagine hundreds and hundreds of those channels and you have a platform that appeals to people on a very personal level that cable can't touch. To be honest, I'm in LA and this almost seems like I'm talking myself into starting up a consultancy specializing in Apple TV apps. Combine hard-to-find assets (iOS developers) and a presumed gold rush with an industry starting to decline (but still flush with cash) and you have a pretty nice business.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Those channels are already popping up on Roku (Wealth TV is one example). I think Apple TV can do it too, I just don't think they can play the "we're Apple" card and have everyone pay them that way when there are competing platforms with just as large user bases (X-Box and Playstation for example) offering a better deal. I'm sure Apple wants in to the market, but only if it's wildly profitable. So far it doesn't look like being a box provider is going to be wildly profitable. The prices have been driven down to $100 - $200 tops so you're not making money on the hardware and there are too many competitors who want content to really make money through subscriptions.

by zach 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

We're not that far off; I think that is something Apple would do. But that's Apple going directly to content producers and making deals with them. That's not something Amazon, Hulu, Veoh, or Crackle could ever be part of (Netflix probably would get grandfathered in). Those are other middle men. Apple wants to be the middle man. It's a really tough sell though. Right now Starz or ABC or whoever can create a subscription channel on Roku, X-Box, Playstation, and I highly doubt they would have to pay anywhere near 30% (My guess is that those platforms are happy to have the content, and allow the apps for free).

zach 15y ago
I think a lot of companies would stick with subscribe-outside apps. Again, same rules as the iPad, so that's okay. Netflix and Hulu would for sure. But: There are 200,000,000 iTunes accounts with credit cards. I really can't fault the established video subscription services for keeping at it, but wow. Can they really resist the power of the App Store? Now, the interesting thing happens outside of the mainstream. If you're Major League Lacrosse, or a yet-to-launch uncensored rap video channel, or SOAPnet (ABC's soap opera channel that a month ago curiously backtracked on their February 2012 announced end date), CurlTV (an online live curling video site that folded earlier this year) or one of many other special interest channels (actual or potential), you're really interested in becoming a subscription channel on Apple TV. Just imagine hundreds and hundreds of those channels and you have a platform that appeals to people on a very personal level that cable can't touch. To be honest, I'm in LA and this almost seems like I'm talking myself into starting up a consultancy specializing in Apple TV apps. Combine hard-to-find assets (iOS developers) and a presumed gold rush with an industry starting to decline (but still flush with cash) and you have a pretty nice business.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Those channels are already popping up on Roku (Wealth TV is one example). I think Apple TV can do it too, I just don't think they can play the "we're Apple" card and have everyone pay them that way when there are competing platforms with just as large user bases (X-Box and Playstation for example) offering a better deal. I'm sure Apple wants in to the market, but only if it's wildly profitable. So far it doesn't look like being a box provider is going to be wildly profitable. The prices have been driven down to $100 - $200 tops so you're not making money on the hardware and there are too many competitors who want content to really make money through subscriptions.