“Every few weeks or so, another report emerges about Apple’s plans to make original TV shows. The narrative goes that Apple is spending surprising amounts money to attract Hollywood talent, allowing it to compete with the likes of Netflix and HBO in the production of prestige television programming,” Jared Newman writes for TechHive. “Apple is even building a 128,000-square-foot TV headquarters in Culver City, California.”

Here’s “a crucial question,” Newman writes. “Are we going to need Apple devices to watch all these new shows?”

“If Apple treats original programming the same way as its other online services, then the answer will likely be ‘yes,'” Newman writes. “That doesn’t mean hardware-exclusive TV is a good idea. Instead, it would be harmful to consumers, toxic to the TV industry, and maybe even detrimental for Apple.”

“There’s a problem with extending this approach to original TV shows: Apple’s own streaming TV box just isn’t popular,” Newman writes. “According to Comscore, only five percent of U.S. Wi-Fi connected homes owned an Apple TV as of one year ago. That’s well behind Roku (18 percent), Amazon Fire TV (12 percent), and Chromecast (8 percent). Although the Apple TV is a fine streaming box, its $149-and-up pricing (the 64GB 4K model is priced at $179, and the 128GB 4K model costs $199) has clearly kept people away.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Who says the Apple TV will be the only way to get the content? Or that Apple will continue with the “expensive box” concept of Apple TV and not move to more affordable Apple TV sticks and/or dongles?

There are too many variables to be able to just pronounce that making Apple content exclusive to Apple devices is a bad idea. As Nintendo can tell you, making exclusive content for your hardware can work very, very well.