21–24 of 24 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if/when Apple makes a TV, there will definitely be an app store with it.
I just don't see them having a need to make the TV part, unless we are talking a big iMac. It just seems like such a crowded field that doesn't really have an upside beyond what the Apple TV is currently able to provide.
and brand is just so strong
I think the reason the Apple TV isn't as disruptive or genius is that I don't believe that Steve Jobs watches much if any TV. He is a busy man running a Fortune 500 company. Do you think he spends a bunch of free time on his couch watching TV? Apple products are great in part because Steve Jobs and other executives use them and so they make sure they are top tier. Apple TV is a "hobby" because the people signing off…
he wants to put a dent in the universe... what better way than revolutionizing TV?
I think the reason the Apple TV isn't as disruptive or genius is that I don't believe that Steve Jobs watches much if any TV. He is a busy man running a Fortune 500 company. Do you think he spends a bunch of free time on his couch watching TV? Apple products are great in part because Steve Jobs and other executives use them and so they make sure they are top tier. Apple TV is a "hobby" because the people signing off…
he wants to put a dent in the universe... what better way than revolutionizing TV/computing?
The problem with the TV is not the user experience, it's the content. Right now, content creators have created an environment that is 10 times more complex and legally difficult to penetrate than anything the music industry did - and they're successfully defending this position against everyone, including Apple. Television should be an experience where I can watch exactly what I want to watch, exactly when I want to…
Commercials are an essential part of the television experience and the main reason why the transition to online is taking so long. Getting advertisers on board is difficult for a variety of reasons (namely that's it's a completely different model). An episode of a TV show can cost several million dollars to make. Reality shows cost much less, obviously. ER, for example, cost 13 million per episode [1]. Do you think t…
Firstly, making the service I am describing available to customers like me doesn't mean that everyone is going to abandon the traditional delivery methods. Such a service would likely require some level of technical sophistication (i.e. plugging in an ethernet cable) where most TV users just want to turn on the TV. Traditional delivery methods, and revenue streams, would not be immediately damaged by such a solution.
Secondly, using your example of ER, there is marginal revenue per viewer. For every viewer that the new service draws from the old service, it becomes necessary to make a certain amount of money per viewer. ER's lowest rating was about 9 million viewers. At 13 million an episode, the marginal revenue per viewer (again, on the low end) would need to be around $3/viewer/episode to earn $14 million in net income per episode (that's 9M viewers x $3.00 = $27mm - $13mm cost per ep = $14mm). At 22 episodes a season, that's $66/yr for each viewer. Compare that to a digital cable service that can cost you well over $1200 dollars a year. You could buy 18 shows on the magnitude of ER for that price, and who could possibly have the emotional fortitude for that? Let alone the free time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%28TV_series%29#Ratings http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/06/news/companies/cable_bill_co...
The cable television business model is a value suck. Albeit, a value suck that's not going anywhere, but I sure as heck am not going to pay for it. I'll stick to free TV, Netflix, and my BD player.
The numbers work for the sort of service I want, and I would bet that Reed Hastings would love to give it to me for $30.00/mo if he could get around the content providers who are clinging to their 20th century business model.