Apple to buy Hollywood Not a chance.

post from Apple on 27 January 2012 07:04:44 PM. © Apple

With about $100 billion just lying around, Apple’s received a number of suggestions for how it can spend that cash. The latest comes from Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch, who argues that Apple could use that money to invest in a new type of subscription TV service to compete with Comcast, Time Warner Cable and the like. But that suggestion overlooks a few very important facts about Apple, and about the economics of today’s pay TV business.

What Apple does and doesn’t do

For a clue to how Apple approaches the video market, you need look no further than how it’s dealt with every other part of the media ecosystem to date: It creates good user experiences across an ecosystem of great products that publishers can sell their content on.

It introduced the iPod and iTunes and allowed the music industry to sell their songs on the platform, and it took a cut. It introduced the iPhone and the App Store and allowed developers to create games, utilities, productivity tools and the like, and it took a cut. It introduced the Apple TV for the Hollywood studios and TV networks to rent and sell their movies and shows to consumers, and it took a cut. It introduced the iPad, iBooks and the Newstand and allowed book and magazine publishers to sell digital versions of their titles to consumers, and it took a cut.

You notice a trend here? Product, platform, revenue share. That model has been extremely profitable for Apple, in part because it’s had to bear little risk to collect whatever revenues and profits come from its partners’ content sales. What Apple does not do is pay upfront to have the luxury of carrying content and then shoulder all the risk while attempting to create a sustainable new business model for its partners.

The economics of the situation

But let’s talk about the actual economics of subscription pay TV. Time Warner Cable announced in its earnings Thursday that it paid somewhere around $25 a month per subscriber in content costs last quarter. Think Apple could do better? It can’t. Any new entrant to the pay TV market acquiring content licenses does so at rates higher than what others have previously negotiated. This was true when the satellite TV companies entered the business, it was true when Verizon and AT&T began offering IPTV services, and it will be true for anyone that attempts to create a virtual cable company.

Starting costs for Apple — or anyone else for that matter — to build a subscription TV service will be in the mid-$30s at the very least. Which means it’s not going to roll out a $25 or $30 subscription service or undercut your local cable company on price anytime soon.

You know how every quarter analysts dissect however many billions of dollars Microsoft has lost in its Internet services business? That would be Apple TV’s media business, quarter after quarter, if it decided to go down this road. Sure, Apple has a lot of money. And sure, Apple could bear those costs. But why would it? What’s the actual benefit for Apple or its investors?

The misplaced dream of a la carte

“But what if I don’t want all of the channels? That’s where Apple could really disrupt things!” It’s a familiar refrain to hope and wish and pray that a company like Apple will be able to do what others have failed at so far, and negotiate a la carte pricing for individual networks. That sure sounds good, and I’m sure consumers would love it! That is, until they saw the price tags associated with each of the networks that they would want to buy.

Even if Apple were able to convince Disney, for instance, to separate ABC, the Disney networks and ESPN’s sports networks from the bundle, it would be just like breaking up any other bundle: the cost to sell each network separately would be egregiously expensive. Prohibitively so.

As a consumer, would you pay $5 just for ABC? Another $5 each for CBS, NBC and Fox? Then $15 or $20 for ESPN? And $25 for HBO? It’s not like these guys are just going to give those channels away at a small premium over what they get from cable. If they’re going to break the subscription bundle, they’re going to want to get paid to do it. In that world, how many channels do you think you could buy before the cost became more than what you already pay for a cable subscription each month?

The actual market opportunity

Put all that aside, though, and the truth of the matter is that streaming video is still a relatively niche market. How many people are out there who actually have an interest in a streaming TV service? In theory, the addressable market is every broadband household that also pays for cable service. But take a look at the number of Apple TVs that are out there (just 4.2 million) or the connect rate on smart TVs today, and you see that very few people are actually taking advantage of broadband-delivered video. That could change with the introduction of the mythical iTV, but it seems pretty tiny today.

Sure, Apple created the modern smartphone market with the iPhone or the tablet market with the iPad. But it’s not into creating new services. And it seems unlikely that Apple would introduce a new service like this, especially one that is likely to be risky, unprofitable and targeting a market segment that doesn’t yet exist.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/video/apple-wont-buy-hollywood/

Digg this

Yahoo kills a bunch of mobile apps you’ve
never used

post from Apple on 27 January 2012 06:04:18 PM. © Apple

Yahoo is cleaning house on the mobile product side, announcing Friday that it is “decommissioning” a long list of mobile apps.

Apps that will no longer be supported include winners like Yahoo! Meme and Yahoo Mim (say what?), as well as some more general mobile apps like Yahoo Answers for Android and Yahoo Deals for iPhone. Unfortunately, Yahoo! Sketch-a-search, which I didn’t even know was a thing before today, is also getting the axe. (You can see the full list on the official announcement.)

Somewhat paradoxically, Yahoo is pitching its non-support of these apps as part of its “mobile first” mindset. But for anyone paying attention, this could be part of a big step forward for Yahoo as it transitions under new CEO Scott Thompson.

Over at Google, CEO Larry Page calls this strategy putting more wood behind fewer arrows. For a company like Yahoo, which has been somewhat stymied by a lack of innovation, it makes sense to kill off products that consumers aren’t using and double down on those linked to its core properties, like Yahoo Mail, Messenger and Flickr, as well as applications like IntoNow where it can introduce disruptive new technology.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/mobile/yahoo-mobile-purge/

Digg this

Amazing Tours: The Caribbean special price cut
January 28 and 29

post from prMac on 27 January 2012 04:13:00 PM. © prMac

California-based developer Selectsoft is offering the educational iOS app Amazing Tours: The Caribbean on sale this weekend only. Explore tropical marine life, escape to Paradise Island, take a helicopter tour, climb Dunn's River Falls, attend a live show of dancing and music, and more. Read along with the text as you watch the videos, then take a fun quiz to find out what you've learned. The islands of the Caribbean are filled with cultural history, natural beauty, delicious foods and more!

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-37463.htm

Digg this

Visit America's Fascinating Sights special price
cut January 28 and 29

post from prMac on 27 January 2012 04:08:00 PM. © prMac

California-based developer Selectsoft is offering the educational iOS app Visit America's Fascinating Sights on sale this weekend only. Enjoy an engaging trip through America's past and present, from carefree Orlando to historic Durango to ancient Monument Valley and beyond. Read along with the text as you watch the videos, then take a fun quiz to find out what you've learned. The app uses an intuitive videobook format that lets you quickly navigate with the swipe of a finger.

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-37462.htm

Digg this

Macworld | iWorld 2012 highlights for home
theater nuts and audiophiles

post from Apple on 27 January 2012 04:04:57 PM. © Apple

One of the trends I saw on the floor at Macworld | iWorld 2012 is an increasing number of companies that are producing high-end audio and home theater equipment to use with your Mac and/or iOS devices. Everyone from the casual enthusiast to the demanding audiophile will want to take a look at the following products from both big brand names and small niche manufacturers.

Home theater

If you want to bring your Apple products into the home theater, you might want to start with the new Epson Megaplex projectors with an integrated iPhone/iPad dock. The Epson MG-850HD provides 720p video (and integrated speakers) from a 3LCD system with 2800 lumens, plenty bright to use for business presentations by day and movie screenings by night. You can quickly set up a screening for the kids by playing a movie from the iPad or running an app that allows video output over the 30-pin dock connector. Priced at $800, the Epson Megaplex is perfect for setting up an outdoor movie night for the kids and their friends.

Crestron is well-known for its high-end home theater and automation equipment and they are a first-time exhibitor at Macworld, showing off the Crestron Mobile Pro control app for iOS. The app replaces proprietary touchscreen controllers, which can cost thousands of dollars, with a software solution that works just as well on your existing iPad.

Audiophiles

On the music side, we also have consumer and audiophile offerings. SRS Labs is showing off its iWOW 3D accessory to enhance the audio for headphones or the car stereo, as well as a music player app that incorporates the company’s sound processing technology along with some high-end features like 10-band EQ and tempo adjustment.

Audioengine is showing off its DACs (digital to audio converters) for improved sound quality to powered speakers. The D1 ($169) or the wireless D2 ($599/set) DACs work great with the Audioengine 5+ bookshelf speakers the company had on display. At the high-end, Peachtree Audio is also showing off its converter offerings, ranging from the small DAC?iT ($449) to the world class Grand Integrated ($4295). All of these DACs are capable of playing high-resolution 24/96 audio files, far better than what you can get from CD.

Speakers & headphones

Monster has its Clarity HD bookshelf speakers ($749) on display. You can also check out the Audioengine 5+ speakers mentioned above. Bang & Olufsen is at the show with its BeoSound 8 iPhone dock boombox and the portable BeoLit 12 AirPlay system.

Accessories

MicW has a nice calibrated cardoid mic for the iPhone and iPad that you can use with a sound pressure level meter iOS app to EQ your room or concert hall. Studio Six Digital is showing AudioTools, its acoustical test and measurement app.

Blinq is demonstrating a universal remote app (and IR emitter) to control your whole setup and connect to a social program guide. Another remote is the VooMote Zapper which combines an app with an IR blaster built into a case, coming soon to an Apple Store near you.

That?s my list of highlights for sound, picture and video fans keen on what’s interesting at Macworld | iWorld this year. Let us know if you spotted anything equally interesting.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/macworld-iworld-2012-highlights-for-home-theater-nuts-and
-audiophiles/

Digg this

Learn Wedding Portraits Now special price cut
January 28 and 29

post from prMac on 27 January 2012 04:04:00 PM. © prMac

California-based developer Selectsoft is offering educational iOS app Learn Wedding Portraits Now on sale this weekend only. Follow along with the instructional video as an experienced pro photographer guides you through a real shoot. Learn about poses, how to give instructions, composition, adjusting to weather, equipment, lighting effects, creating narrative and more! Learn Wedding Portraits Now offers a wealth of tips & information to help you take photos that will be treasured for years.

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-37461.htm

Digg this

Siri isn’t a bandwidth hog & users
aren’t the problem

post from Apple on 27 January 2012 02:03:53 PM. © Apple

The sky is falling again in cellular land, and this time Siri is to blame. At least, that’s the assessment from an opinion article in the Washington Post Friday morning claiming Siri not only unleashed a huge new pattern of data consumption on mobiles, but that in return, her piggy ways destroy the experience for the rest of us because of the shared nature of cellular networks.

From the article:

And building new capacity isn?t cheap. Everyone ? not just the first-class passengers ? ends up paying for it. So prepare for higher cellphone bills. And in the meantime? Prepare to sit and wait. That call to Grandma might not get through until the congestion clears.
Other alternatives might be less palatable, especially to anyone who wants immediate downloading gratification. We could stay off the grid or utilize fewer data-intensive functions. Or we could put some traffic cops on the beat to regulate our data demands and limit the traffic snarls and bottlenecks.

But if you think Siri is somehow responsible for the data overload, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Siri is the first generation of interfaces that will make it seamless and easy for us to surf the web from anywhere, and on any device or vehicle. So the author’s problem is one that’s only going to get bigger. Thankfully, it has a solution — one which he seems to ignore.

Paul Farhi, the author of the piece, makes a couple of errors (or maybe omissions is kinder) that are worth pointing out to the policy wonks in D.C., especially as they contemplate bills that would gut the FCC’s ability to make spectrum policy in the U.S. for the sake politics. Onto the problems:

Siri as data hog

Siri, the natural language processing service Apple introduced on the iPhone 4S, doesn’t consume the data Farhi says it does in his article when he says, “Siri?s dirty little secret is that she?s a bandwidth guzzler, the digital equivalent of a 10-miles-per-gallon Hummer H1.” Siri consumes very little data in sending your voice back to the servers to figure out what you want the phone to do, but what it does is make it that much easier to surf the web. Farhi seems to understand this, but his first characterization is blatantly false. Siri isn’t guzzling data; she’s making it easier for us to do so. We’re the guzzlers.

The airwaves as highways

The second problem with the article is more complicated. Farhi uses the popular highways analogy for how we send cellular traffic and explains that building out more infrastructure takes time. (One reason is because it takes about 10 years on average to get spectrum into the hands of carriers thanks to the politics associated with spectrum auctions.) But what he misses, and what is crucial to his point, is that there is more than one set of wireless highways. There are multiple types of licensed airwaves that are used for everything from satellite radio to cellular, and there are unlicensed airwaves where data is currently sent using Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and soon, WiGig.

When we’re talking over the air, there’s not one single highway to get us from Point A to Point B; there are multiple spectrum bands, technologies and costs associated with them. In this age, using wireless is like engaging in multimodal commuting. You use cellular to drive to the train station and the high-speed rails of Wi-Fi fly downtown. Meanwhile, you’re sharing those rails and highways with thousands of other commuters in neighboring airwaves that are the equivalent of bikers, skateboarders etc.

We can keep Siri and still call grandma. Here’s how:

That’s where Farhi missed a big opportunity to tell D.C. that instead of focusing on cars and the single highway, it should look around at all the other technologies out there. Stop listening to the carriers, who actually do have spectrum they can deploy if they want to work a little harder and spend a little more, and start thinking about how Wi-Fi or white spaces broadband (Super Wi-Fi) can play a role in taking congestion off over the air data networks.

Passing a spectrum bill that allows for more unlicensed airwaves would be a start, as would leaving the FCC to deal with the highly technical issues surrounding spectrum auctions. Pushing the FCC to investigate special access fees would also help, as it might lower the rate of bringing a fiber pipe out to areas so ISPs can support large-scale Wi-Fi or white spaces networks. But first, we have to understand how the wireless and cellular networks work, so we can propose viable solutions instead of blaming applications that make our lives better for congesting our network.

Since many of those solutions will require action (or inaction) from Congress and the FCC, the Washington Post missed a golden opportunity to educate its readers about possible solutions and push the debate forward with mobile operators about using Wi-Fi more strategically, making it possible for rural areas to use unlicensed airwaves to create broad coverage areas without paying an arm and leg for a gigabyte and helping Congress understand how the industry actually works.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/2012/01/27/siri-is-not-a-bandwidth-hog-and-users-are-not-the-pr
oblem/

Digg this

Games for the weekend: Tank Riders

post from Apple on 27 January 2012 02:03:53 PM. © Apple

Games for the Weekend is a weekly feature aimed at helping you avoid doing something constructive with your downtime. Each Friday we?ll be recommending a game for Mac, iPhone or iPad that we think is awesome enough to keep you busy until Monday, at least.

Tank Riders ($1.99 Universal, $3.99 Mac) is a good cross between a maze, puzzle and third-person shooter game that can be really fun in the right circumstances on the right devices. Thanks to well thought-out maps, Polarbit has done an amazing job at keeping the gameplay interesting enough in single-player mode, while also making multiplayer competitive and fun.

Tank Riders

Tank Riders has just two basic controls: one for steering your tank, and one for shooting. As the levels progress, you’re faced more challenging level puzzles barring your way to the finish line, and more bad guys trying to stop you from getting there. Along the way, you can pick up extra health and special weapons. But with the start of each level, you get set back to your tank’s starting configuration.

Tank Riders

As mentioned, the maps are what make this game shine. In single player mode, crumbling walls and destructible crates make for a delightfully changeable environment.

What’s great about multiplayer mode is that you can have multiple online accounts on your iPhone, iPad and Mac to play against visiting family and friends. So if you happen to have more than one Apple device at your disposal, you can set up a tournament in the comfort of your own home.

Tank Riders

Tank Riders isn’t without problems. On the iPhone in particular, the screen is just too small to spot the enemy, navigate your tank, and shoot your gun turret all at the same time. I did, however, find that using the iPhone like a traditional game controller while playing the game on my HDTV through my Apple TV over AirPlay was a perfect solution to that problem. On the iPad and Mac, you won’t have the same problem, and the Mac’s controls make the experience far easier. So if you plan on going head-to-head with your friends in multiplayer mode, get the Mac version to gain the competitive advantage.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/games-for-the-weekend-tank-riders/

Digg this

For Apple, iCloud is just the beginning

No one can doubt the sheer awesomeness packaged in Apple’s recent quarterly performance. However, for me the real story is the company’s iCloud and CEO Tim Cook’s assertion that with 85 million sign-ups in three months, Apple is only getting started with iCloud. “It’s not just a product, it’s a strategy for the next decade,” Cook declared. The recent elevation of Eddy Cue to SVP of Internet Services and his generous stock options are a sign of how serious Cook is about iCloud. The $1 billion data center in North Carolina is more proof of the company’s seriousness.

So the question is, What plans does Apple have for the cloud? Given recent history one can easily assume that the company would build more cloud apps that enhance existing services, like iTunes Match and Photostream. But those are small potatoes. The real opportunity for Apple is to offer a series of network services for its developers and millions of iPhone and iPad and Mac owners: network services such as storage, location data, voice command and control, notifications, and messaging.

Storage. ICloud is already a place to access your photos, songs and contacts remotely from any iOS device or OS X Lion machine. But what about making your desktop files and apps available everywhere too? Take the way Apple is going with its MacBook Air, a huge hit for the company. A logical next step to make even thinner and lighter machines with very little room for storage is to make a cloud-centric MacBook. Imagine opening up your laptop that has little local storage and being able to access any of your documents you have saved, anywhere you are. We know Apple has been sniffing around this area: Steve Jobs offered to acquire Dropbox several years ago, telling its founder, Drew Houston, that it was really “a feature, not a product.” So a cloud-based storage service that perhaps developers could use for their own apps? Doesn’t sound too far out there.
Location. Apple bought mapping companies PlaceBase in 2009 and Poly9 in 2010. We also know the company is hiring for mapping-related positions. That sparked speculation that Apple is indeed building its own location-based service. It has some location services in action already, like Find My iPhone and Find My Friends. An interesting step would be if Apple opened up such a service as an API to its developers.
Voice control. Siri is still in beta, which means it is not even a finished product. What will Apple do with it in years to come? A good bet is it will integrate it into more Apple devices. The future of device interfaces is more nontraditional methods of control, like voice and gestures. In other words, Siri is not an anomaly or a cute, little experiment: It’s the future. A good place to look for clues about how Apple might implement more voice control services is a patent filing Apple made, showing its interest in putting Siri in everything from Macs to cars.

It is true that Apple is not a company that has historically had great success with web-based services. Embracing networked services and the cloud means Apple inherently understands that even hardware companies that extract gazillions of dollars in profit right now can?t go another decade without this. In a way, Apple also has no choice but to pursue this. If it wants to continue to build the post-PC dream, it has to have iCloud and other connected services that connect all of its apps, services and devices.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/apple/for-apple-icloud-is-just-the-beginning/

Digg this

Apple buy Hollywood Not a chance

With about $100 billion just lying around, Apple’s received a number of suggestions for how it can spend that cash. The latest comes from Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch, who argues that Apple could use that money to invest in a new type of subscription TV service to compete with Comcast, Time Warner Cable and the like. But that suggestion overlooks a few very important facts about Apple, and about the economics of today’s pay TV business.

What Apple does and doesn’t do

For a clue into how Apple approaches the video market, you need look no further than how it’s dealt with every other part of the media ecosystem to date: It creates good user experiences across an ecosystem of great products that publishers can sell their content on.

It introduced the iPod and iTunes and allowed the music industry to sell their songs on the platform, and it took a cut. It introduced the iPhone and the App Store and allowed developers to create games, utilities, productivity tools and the like, and it took a cut. It introduced the Apple TV for the Hollywood studios and TV networks to rent and sell their movies and shows to consumers, and it took a cut. It introduced the iPad, iBooks and the Newstand and allowed book and magazine publishers to sell digital versions of their titles to consumers, and it took a cut.

You notice a trend here? Product, platform, revenue share. That model has been extremely profitable for Apple, in part because it’s had to bear little risk to collect whatever revenues and profits come from its partners’ content sales. What Apple does not do is pay upfront to have the luxury of carrying content and then shouldering all the risk while attempting to create a sustainable new business model for its partners.

The economics of the situation

But let’s talk about the actual economics of subscription pay TV. Time Warner Cable announced in its earnings Thursday that it paid somewhere around $25 a month per subscriber in content costs last quarter. Think Apple could do better? It can’t. Any new entrant to the pay TV market acquiring content licenses does so at rates higher than what others have previously negotiated. This was true when the satellite TV companies entered the business, it was true when Verizon and AT&T began offering IPTV services, and it will be true for anyone that attempts to create a virtual cable company.

Starting costs for Apple — or anyone else for that matter — to build a subscription TV service will be in the mid-$30s at the very least. Which means it’s not going to roll out a $25 or $30 subscription service or undercut your local cable company on price anytime soon.

You know how every quarter analysts dissect however many billions of dollars Microsoft has lost in its Internet services business? That would be Apple TV’s media business, quarter after quarter, if it decided to go down this road. Sure, Apple has a lot of money. And sure, Apple could bear those costs. But why would it? What’s the actual benefit for Apple or its investors?

The misplaced dream of a la carte

“But what if I don’t want all of the channels? That’s where Apple could really disrupt things!” It’s a familiar refrain to hope and wish and pray that someone like Apple will be able to do what others have failed at so far, and negotiate a la carte pricing for individual networks. That sure sounds good, and I’m sure consumers would love it! That is, until they saw the price tags associated with each of the networks that they would want to buy.

Even if Apple were able to convince Disney, for instance, to separate ABC, the Disney networks and ESPN’s sports networks from the bundle, it would be just like breaking up any other bundle: the cost to sell each network separately would be egregiously expensive. Prohibitively so.

As a consumer, would you pay $5 just for ABC? Another $5 each for CBS, NBC and Fox? $15 or $20 for ESPN? $25 for HBO? It’s not like these guys are just going to give those channels away at a small premium over what they get from cable. If they’re going to break the subscription bundle, they’re going to want to get paid to do it. In that world, how many channels do you think you could buy before the cost became more than what you already pay for a cable subscription each month?

The actual market opportunity

Put all that aside, though, and the truth of the matter is that streaming video is still a relatively niche market. How many people are out there who actually have an interest in a streaming TV service? In theory, the addressable market is every broadband household that also pays for cable service. But take a look at the number of Apple TVs that are out there (just 4.2 million) or the connect rate on smart TVs today, and you see that very few people are actually taking advantage of broadband-delivered video. That could change with the introduction of the mythical iTV, but it seems pretty tiny today.

Sure, Apple created the modern smartphone market with the iPhone or the tablet market with the iPad. But it’s not into creating new services. And it seems unlikely that Apple would introduce a new service like this, especially one that is likely to be risky, unprofitable and targeting a market segment that doesn’t yet exist.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Read The Full Article:
http://gigaom.com/video/apple-wont-buy-hollywood/

Digg this