“For Apple to make the most of its peerless products, experts say it will need to improve relations with the folks who create the content to run on them,” Peter Burrows reports for BusinessWeek.
“At Macworld, studios including Disney and News Corp.’s 20th Century Fox are expected to announce support for a new iTunes movie rental service. Fox and others are also expected to make their newest releases available at iTunes, something only Disney currently does. But Apple is clinching such deals in part because of its newfound willingness to compromise, say sources. Apple has agreed to increase the wholesale price it pays to studios, from $14 to closer to the $16 they get when they sell a DVD to Wal-Mart, say people familiar with the negotiations,” Burrows reports.
“It doesn’t help that Apple’s newly introduced Apple TV, designed to send movies wirelessly from the home computer to a TV, has met with criticism for having poor resolution and offering access to movies only through iTunes. ‘In the music business, [Jobs] made a confusing situation simple,’ says Abe Peled, CEO of set-top box software maker NDS Group, which is 72%-owned by Rupert Murdoch. ‘With video, he is trying to make a simple solution difficult. People don’t need one more box on top of their TV sets.,'” Burrows reports.
MacDailyNews Take: “People don’t need one more box on top of their TV sets,” says a guy who sells software for non-Apple set-boxes who may or may not be worried that Apple’s box won’t be added next to his box, but instead replace it. Thanks for the newsflash, Mr. Burrows. Why don’t you just post Abe’s press releases verbatim next time? We know, we know, that’d be more work than you put into this article. And Apple TV is capable of high resolution, it’s Hollywood and/or Apple who have to bring the high def content to iTunes. Don’t incorrectly blame the hardware.
Burrows continues, “Of course, Apple could always adapt to a new paradigm in music or video distribution, but it may well require a greater degree of cooperation than Jobs will abide. Says a media titan who recently approached Jobs about exploring ways to work together but didn’t get far: ‘Steve doesn’t want partners.'”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Navy Tim” for the heads up.]
“Steve doesn’t want partners,” says one guy — sorry, nameless “media titan” — who perhaps had nothing of value to offer? Apple seems to partner perfectly well when they want to do so (examples: Disney, O2, CBS, Fox, AT&T Wireless, Google, etc.). Have fun trying to find “experts” in Burrow’s report who “say Apple will need to improve relations with the folks who create the content.” We can’t find any “experts” in Burrows’ article, unless, if by “experts,” Burrows means “Apple’s competitors and spurned suitors.” The one independent-seeming fellow in Burrows’ article who might be labeled “expert,” eMarketer analyst Paul Verna was quoted as saying, simply, “Everyone is flexing their muscles to prove they don’t need each other. But the truth is, they do.”
He is correct when he says people don’t want another set top box, at least with respect to some people (like me). I would love for Apple to add digital-cable compatible DVR capabilities that seemlessly integrated recorded TV with iTunes. It would be an improvement even over TiVo, especially if they worked out a deal with Open Cable that worked around the copy protection sent over digital cable signals. These signals cripple features like TiVoToGo.
Apple has said in the past that it’s not interested in moving into the DVR space, but it would definitely be a way to get more of a hold in video.
At least, he sees that Apple’s products are “peerless”.
Who is the “media titan”. I would say MDN, not to assume because they didn’t publish his name that he isn’t someone that is big. It could be the president of Paramount for all you know.
However, it is more likely that it is somebody from a small independent studio.
However, Apple should play nicer. They do a very good job at cooperation, don’t get me wrong. But it wouldn’t hurt them to bend a little. I would rather pay $4.99 for an episode from NBC than have to go to Amazon to get the same thing for $1.99. It is more convenient for me to use iTunes than it is Amazon’s stupid “Unbox”.
Maybe playing just a little nicer would have kept NBC on iTunes (though at a higher rate).
Whatever, I guess it doesn’t matter because Everyone (including me) loves everything apple is doing, so forget about the other guys.
I agree that people don’t need an additional box (or a new mess of cables) attached to their TVs. As it is right now, I only have an Xbox 360 attached to it, which I use to watch DVDs, and stream my iTunes, iPhoto, and video content to my TV from my Mac (via Connect360)
The only way I think Apple could turn an Apple TV purchase from frivolous to sensible is to allow people to replace an existing living room device with it. Perhaps by incorporating a DVD/Blu-ray player for instance.
Although being able to use it to stream rented movies may be enough to entice me…..
“Apple may need to play better with others”
Is this really news? Same old story, different day. AppleTV sucks and Windows Home Server rules. End of story.
More importantly, did Britney make it to court today?
Your potential. Our passion.™
REALTORben,
Sorry, but you lost me when you said you’d rather pay Apple $4.99 for what used to cost $1.99.
If Jobs let pricing control go for NBC, it’d all go to hell in a handbasket instantly.
The guy is right about the extra box.
If the Apple TV had DVR capabilities, coupled with the iTunes movie rental service, I could get rid of my DVD player/recorder.
Rupert Murdoch is an ass
G Spank, GEORGE SOROS is an “ass without peer.”
Apple is somewhat flexible; however, Apple has a very distinct vision of where it wants to go and what the consumer market is. Apple has earned a reputation for not working with third parties, and most often, Apple has been proven correct – Mac OS X, iPod, iTunes and one price songs, the iPhone model (which is attempting to be copied by phone manufacturers now), etc.
Where Apple will show its flexibility is in the world of video content delivery. This is an area where multiple tiered pricing has virtually always existed, and new products are now available to muddy those waters (buying single tv shows, music videos, etc.). What remains to be seen is how well Apple can convince the content providers that it’s vision is what consumers want. As we have seen time and time again, these huge studios (music or movies) are not always very flexible or willing to listen to new ideas.
Hence we see remake after remake, sequel after sequel, teeny bop band after identical teeny bop band.
MDN — take your nose out and wipe your faces. Apple does need to do better at relationships. Jobs said this himself at the D5 event where he and Gates were interviewed together. He said is wished Apple had the relationships that MS has. Apple has a “we don’t need any help” mentality. Hopefully this will change.
Ya gotta luv the tech writers, they have such short memories. Where was all this ‘air of cooperation’ with Apple when Micro$oft was king?
Very few companies of any kind (software, hardware, media, I could go on) wanted to work with Apple in any way, shape or form. Those few that did were either bought by Micro$oft or run out of business all together.
Look at Sony (as an example). If you bought a DVD from a Sony-owned studio and wanted to access the ‘extra features’ on it, you needed a PeeCee and Windows Media Player. Have you forgotten the CD’s that for a short time wouldn’t even PLAY on a Mac (unless you had a black marker
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
It’s no accident that Micro$oft’s decline started with the advent of OS X. They had no ‘agreement’ in place to COPY the innovations as they did with OSes 7-9. Thank God, Steve had sense enough to stop being the research arm of Micro$oft. I shudder to think where both Apple and Micr$oft would be if Steve hadn’t assumed the reins and the ‘leadership’ of Apple continued to hand over innovation after innovation to Micro$oft just to continue to get Word 95 with minor and infrequent updates.
Even Adobe was in the process of abandoning Apple (if you didn’t see it coming I’ve got some waterfront property in New Orleans to see you). I really wish Apple would come out with a full-blown image editor and force Adobe to keep up with and program for the Mac.
These tech writers are the same ones that said Apple was insignificant, should stop copying Micro$oft (what????) and should just do the ‘right’ thing and become another box assembler and software writer for Micro$oft. It’s a good thing Steve doesn’t listen to them and ‘has a reputation for not geting along’ with the status quo.
Isn’t Peter Burrows related to Dick Butkus? No? Ok….
It’s all about the dollars. Folks didn’t want to play with Apple back in the 90’s because they couldn’t make any dollars from it. Today, Apple’s hard work and innovation has captured a good chunk of the market, and consumers love Apple. Apple is making money by the bucketload. And they have done it their own way, in their own style, and time. Now they are supposed to bend over and let these other companies have a slice of the pie? Give me a break. I for one like the fact that Apple is seen as “hard to deal with”. It means my software doesn’t crash, and my hardware is reliable. Sure I paid extra, but I get extra. And if that means Apple has to be extra nasty to the vultures, then fine, I’ll pay extra for that too. Let them all squabble.
Take off your Mac Tinted Glasses… this article is basically on point… Apple does need to play better others… look how they burned Motorola with the iTunes Razor or how angry the Music lables and artist are with iTunes dominance. I’d rather pay more for products and content if I have too if it means Apple remains viable. However I’d hate to see a backlash against Apple for its practices. I for one, have already began buying more and more content from Amazon, as I suspect many of you have. I also suspect in the next 2 years, we’ll see a significant drop in iTunes market share as people become more familar with services like Amazon, etc.
@Allen,
The key is “meaningful partnerships.”
See MacWorld Boston 1997 Steve Jobs keynote for direct reference.
Allan: “He said is wished Apple had the relationships that MS has. Apple has a “we don’t need any help” mentality.”
Well, in terms of media distribution, the MS “relationships” mostly are MS rolling over and offering to do whatever the content providers want, eg giving them a cut of Zune sales.
I believe you have misconstrued Apples position. For media distribution, it is “we don’t want to use your ridiculous pricing schemes”. The content providers have proven that they want to gouge consumers for inferior products in order to maintain their other distribution channels.
Apple is simply trying to sell the content in a manner that <<gasp>> actually considers what the consumer will pay.
Mac_Atty: “..look…how angry the Music lables and artist are with iTunes dominance”
This has nothing to do with Apple “not playing nice”. It has to do with the fact that Apple was the only company that rolled out a service that consumers wanted to use. Apple has tried to get rid of DRM – maybe the labels should be angry at themselves for being stupid. If they had “played nice”, iTunes would not have succeeded. The anger over iTunes market share should be directed at their inability to develop a serious competitor via one of their super-duper partnerships. The Amazon download store suggest that this may finally change.
BTW, I’m not sure what artists are “angry” at Apple’s dominance except for those that own a label and want to stick to an outmoded distribution model.
@Mac_Atty
” …. how angry the Music lables and artist are with iTunes”
The music labels can kiss my @ss and we settled the other point weeks ago, Jay-Z is NOT an artist.
BusinessWeek: “Apple may need to play better with others.”
Oh, you mean like Microsoft does now?
Give us a break.
@ Mac_Atty:
“.. look how they burned Motorola with the iTunes Razor or how angry the Music lables and artist are with iTunes dominance.”
You must be one of the journalists I spoke of having a short memory. Motorola got what they deserved after Apple let them in on one of their prized possessions (the iTunes ecosystem) only to be burned by MOTOROLA who reneged on a promise to build a low-power, high-performance chip for Apple’s Macs. Motorola then bent over backwards to accommodate Sony and Micro$oft with a chip for their gaming platforms. And it was the Rokr (not the Razr) that was first offered by Motorola and by all accounts (even the press) it was a piece of sh*t! You would think they would have learned something from their association with Apple and would have built something someone would find useful AND aesthetically pleasing.
Next time, know what you’re talking about before you tell someone to take off the “Mac tinted glasses”.
All the other electronics companies play nice with each and as a result they seem to produce pure shit for products. Apple on the other hand makes quality products because they don’t have to play nice with some other company that does not have the consumers best interest at heart.
All these losers, including many posters here, telling Apple how to run a business.
That’s rich, I must say.
Look at the company. I think Steve is doing quite well, thank you very much.
MDN are you defending AppleTV again? I hope Apple pay you by the hour.
Yeah, you tell ’em! You’re saying the same things I told Steve. “Steve, baby, you can trust me. I’m the Prez’s personal consultant.”
More importantly, did Britney make it to court today?
By this time next year, MacWorld 2009:
Apple: 20% PC market share, iTunes is huge in video.
MS: major “restructuring” after a year-long profit collapse.
Britney: dead.