Advertisement

Apple just announced another "postponement" of their speculative linear video streaming service. Predictably, this is coming down to more of the same video content issues for Apple. I've publicly predicted this, and other similar impasses. But to be blunt, it really has nothing to do with Steve Jobs. The man is gone, and Apple is still living in the real world. There's also very little victory in it for me to point any of this out. But I'd like to make this attempt to "reach" them anyway.

Does Apple Need an Intervention?
Apple just announced another "postponement" of their speculative linear video streaming service. Predictably, this is coming down to more of the same video content issues for Apple. I've publicly predicted this, and other similar impasses. But to be blunt, it really has nothing to do with Steve Jobs. The man is gone, and Apple is still living in the real world. There's also very little victory in it for me to point any of this out. But I'd like to make this attempt to "reach" them anyway.

Think of this as an intervention.


Apple is trying to force this to happen, and they do want it. But their desperation is almost apparent. And yet, conflicting rumors keep coming back saying that there's still going to be some sort of new foray into TV coming, even though recently they finally let that rumor die. How about this linear fiasco, or the rumors of supposed useful breakthroughs, or pending content deals coming to AppleTV? They want us to trust them and believe, that good times are ahead.

However, they still face the same basic issue that most, if not all undesirable middle men face. What if the content producers focused on distributing content using their own proprietary channels? Hulu is one good example. They have no direct competition, since they award exclusives on new (premium) content to themselves. They cannot control the flow of content by licensing it to others.

So subsequently, they dictate poor conditions and poor values to us, and we have no choice. For example, binging is now being eliminated, they force commercials into paid video streams, they won't release content online simultaneously, nor will they allow us to watch it on any device of our choice. Google seems to have already come to this conclusion, and they seem to be regrouping to some degree.

The realization has began to sink in that having stacks of cash "buys no ticket to the dance." Neither does having millions of (captive) customers. Many different, seemingly undesirable third parties are on the outside looking in. In my view, it's taken years for many hopeful new distributors to come to these very same conclusions. But now, the "alarm has finally sounded" for the mass majority.

That's good, because Apple, Alphabet (Google) and others, are all in that same category, basically. They are seen as a threat, but they can be placated to some degree. Netflix is now a member of the club as well. They were once a non-threat, but they landed a sweet deal by Starz that launched them online. But when renewal came up, the renewal costs were prohibitive (party's over).

Later, they decided that content production was a "necessary evil" and they have been rewarded by Wall Street; even though they produce only a tiny fraction of the premium content that content companies traditionally produce.

They talk a good game, and yet, their production abilities are not exactly "superior." But they try to do the best they can, with the cards they've been dealt. It's still a work in progress, and it may simply serve as window dressing until and unless that day does in fact arrive, that they can really outproduce a HBO.

They aspire to be more than just another channel. They want to replace cable bundles, which is nice, but it also seems very far off.  Others speculate that we will simply look back on this as an early indication of the content providers efforts to eventually "own" these same channels of distribution that others (without content), already have ready. All they need is inventory. In fact these empty platforms are starting to look ordinary, or easily duplicated at the least.

So there's no leverage in building a platform. "If you build it they will come" has proved to be a wish, not a plan in retrospect. So in the end, it may end up being better, to make content that you want to distribute; than it is to have a way to distribute content, that you don't make. To the audience, content is still key.
Does Apple Need an Intervention?

You can have a laundry list of "B" titles, or feature primarily reruns and "classic" films that rotate on a monthly basis. But unless you can produce or secure a source of significant "desirable" content at a remotely reasonable values, you will never truly "compete" much less "corner" this market. You can't simply expect to mark it up because "you're Apple" and people are used to paying you a premium price for their hardware. You are a third party reseller in this case.

But don't "come out of left field" and try to distract us from the content we desire, by adding a nifty home hub to AppleTV, or the like again. It'd not a matter of incorporating even more hardware features. Focus on your market and be the best at something unique. How will those efforts bring content to these expensive devices that we didn't ask for in the first place? Answer: it won't.

Apple needs to decide when, they're finished with this task of evaluating where they stand with content providers. By now they should be getting the message. The conventional has failed you. Now you're forced to adapt (like the rest of us).

Maybe, try to think...different.


R. Wade Cowan
Written by

iTech Dunya

iTech Dunya

iTech Dunya is a technology blog that specializes in guides, reviews, how-to's, and tips about a broad range of tech-related topics..

Post A Comment:

0 comments: