It seems Apple is rethinking its TV strategy, in a way that might--if the company can pull it off--give consumers the option to pay Apple less than half as much as they currently pay their cable or satellite provider for a monthy TV subscription.
According to All Things Digital's Peter Kafka, Apple has been trying to convince programmerrs to make their shows available as part of a subscription, available via iTunes. The monthly price would be around $30, he reports.
We've heard these rumors before--but that doesn't mean they're not true. And the approach makes sense. It would give consumers more of what they really want--a lower bill, anywhere access, without having to buy another gizmo.
It also fixes some problems with Apple's current TV plans. It's clear, by Steve Jobs' own admission, that the company's Apple TV device is mostly for hobbyists. The products tepid sales may be less a reflection of the product's quality, than of the simple fact that most humans conceive of TV as a service--something that is simply delivered into their homes, not something they have to buy, set-up and repair. It's no surprise that Apple tried this approach first; it's the ultimate "product company," filled with employees (and a CEO) that like coming to work to great some neat new object of desire. But unlike other forms of media (music fans, for instance, have long purchased their music in the form of a product such as a vinyl album, CD or digital download), TV viewers have always paid that monthly cable or satellite bill (or received terrestrial broadcast TV service for free).
The new subscription approach also fits with what's happening in the world. Technologically, it fits with the rapid rise of digital streaming, in which a consumer views a piece of content that resides out on the Internet, as opposed to having to store a copy of that content on the hard drive in their PC, iPod or iPhone. So long as the content can be delivered in this manner glitch-free, streamed content fits better with how many people want to get their digital video: on whatever screen is most convenient. While the Apple TV might appeal to people that are fixated on watching Web-fare on their big screen TV, more people I know are far more interested in getting TV content, and any other kind of content, onto their laptop, PC or smartphone.
No company is as well positioned to satisfy this demand than Apple. Many carriers have plans to make their content available in more numerous, and interesting ways. Microsoft continues to push its "Three Screens and a Cloud" vision. But only Apple has iTunes. Hundreds of millions of people have tthis program installed on their PCs, Macs, iPods and iPhones, and more than 75 million have an ongoing billing relationship with the online store by the same name. Rather than any one product, it seems to me Apple's greatest imperative should be maintaining iTunes' role in these consumers' lives. The Apple TV may never be a hit. But consumers that decide to get their TV via iTunes rather than their current provider will be much more likely to buy new Apple products down the road. Certainly, many would consider a device for watching TV that is more portable than a MacBook, but larger than an iPhone. A tablet device, for example.
All of this remains conjecture, and assumes that Apple iTunes chief Eddy Cue can land the necessary content deals. It won't be easy, since these partners will be loath to cross their current distributors. But don't count Cue out. I wrote about him in the magazine recently, and my sources all say he's an immensely talented negotiator, that has pulled off many deals that looked impossible.
Such was the case when Apple first got studios to sell downloads via iTunes in 2005. After Jobs won over Disney, Cue wooed many of the others, says one former Apple manager. “Once a deal is worked out with a leader in a particular deal--in this case Disney--Eddy's great at convincing the others that they better get on the bandwagon." He does it with charm, rather than threats, says the source. "He's a schmoozer in the grand style--in a good way. Most of the people he deals with think of him as a close personal friend."
Rob Hof has a post next door on Tech Beat regarding today's news that Google Voice is allowing people to sign up for the service using their existing mobile numbers.
The classic complaint about Google Voice is that you have to start with a new number, and then pass that number around to everyone who's likely to call you in order for it to be effective. That presents a mild annoyance. If someone is accustomed to calling your cell phone number all the time, they just keep calling it and when they leave messages, they go not to Google Voice, where they get transcribed and forwarded to your email address and stored indefinitely. Rather these messages go to your wireless carrier's voice mail system where they're stored for a limited time, hard to get at, impossible to forward or share, and never transcribed.
As part of the rollout of the new features I noticed something very interesting on my Google Voice account. I noticed that the two mobile phones attached to my Google Voice account, one a Blackberry on Verizon, the other an iPhone on AT&T, had a new setting: "Activate Google voicemail for this phone." I clicked it and was given instructions on phone number to dial that began with *71. Essentially what I think it does is tell your wireless carrier to forward an unanswered call to Google Voice, essentially bypassing the carrier's voice mail system.
That means people call and leave messages on my mobile number will get transferred to Google Voice. And because those messages go straight to my email address, I'm more likely to respond to them quickly, or to return the call, and I can effectively forget about the passcode to get into my mobile voice mail account.
And if you're an iPhone user and a Google Voice customer, you can more closely integrate the two products into a more seamless experience, whether or not Apple ever gets around to approving the Google Voice application for the iPhone.
What's still missing from Google Voice is number portability for land lines. I would really like to transfer my home telephone number to Google Voice, and stop paying the exorbitant fees to Verizon for a phone I rarely use. I'd get rid of it entirely except for the fact that its in the 212 area code, for New Yorkers, losing a 212 number is, as I once wrote, like giving away a pet. Services like RingCentral, which I reviewed in the magazine over the summer, and Vonage allow number portability. Why not Google Voice?
During the entire conversation he took the opportunity to charge his iPhone, and after we had wrapped up the interview someone asked him what his favorite app is.
For the record, the chairman's favorite iPhone app is Vito Technology's Star Walk, a simple astronomy application that harnesses the iPhone's GPS capabilities to present an on-screen view of what stars and constellations should be visible on a clear night from your current location. He said he's recently been introducing his 5-year old daughter to the pleasures of stargazing, and that the application has been useful in explaining what they're seeing in the night sky. As you move the phone right and left or up and down, the view of the sky shown on the phone moves with you. It also contains links to Wikipedia articles about celestial bodies like planets and nebulae and it contains information on the phases of the moon. (Image below from Appcraver.)
Last week I wrote a story in the magazine about Apple's plan to use the Windows 7 launch as an opportunity to woo consumers who've been thinking about moving to the Mac anyway. So on Win7's launch day yesterday--and two days after it spiced up its own product line with new iMacs and MacBooks--it made its pitch via three new TV ads. Here they are:
Broken Promises
Teeter Totter
PC News
Microsoft, of course, had it's own ads related to its launch. Here's a sample:
Personally, I think Apple wins this inning of this ongoing marketing war, in a big way. Apple's ads play on a reality that millions--make that hundreds of millions--of people recognize: that despite promises with each new release of Windows, people's PCs still run into plenty of maddening problems. Of course, using a Mac isn't a guaranteed one-way ticket to computing nirvana. But then, Apple has only to convince people to try something new. The ads make the case in a compelling way.
As for the Microsoft ads, I think they're just a tad abstract for the job at hand. First off, the greatest leap forward with Windows 7 is that it's better at the basic blocking and tackling--not fantabulous new features and capabilities. As such, I don't think the "ideas" being highlighted will move too many couch potatoes to go order a new PC.
More to the point, I think Microsoft missed an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive. The reality in the marketplace is that millions of people who have not wanted to buy Windows Vista are looking for reasons to go buy Windows 7. The company should have found a funny, humble way to poke fun at itself--to admit that, yes, Windows 7 is better than its predecessor, and that nobody is happier that the Vista era is over than Microsoft itself.
Finland's wireless giant Nokia said today that it is suing Apple for what it says are violations of 10 patents it holds on several wireless technologies.
The patents in question, it says are fundamental to making devices like the iPhone compatible with certain wireless network standards including GSM, the network technology behind AT&T Wireless and other networks on which the iPhone operates around the world, as well as wireless LAN technologies, which means Wi-Fi, and UMTS.
Nokia's complaint -- which I haven't read in full yet -- apparently is based upon the principle that when companies contribute their intellectual property to industry standards they need to get compensated for it. Nokia's press release quotes Ilkka Rahnasto, Vice President, Legal & Intellectual Property as saying that "By refusing to agree appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation." Nokia says the patents have been infringed by all Apple iPhones shipped since 2007.
The case has been filed in the Federal District Court in Delaware, and as soon as I have a copy of the complaint, I'll post it here. The press release is here.
Update:As promised here's a copy of Nokia's complaint which I uploaded to Scribd. It's also embedded below.
An Apple spokesman declined to comment citing the company's policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
Yes, it's true. Apple's stock at the moment sits at the rarified price of $205.04--higher than the former best of $202.96 set on Dec. 27, 2007. Amazing, considering the state...
Reader "Browne" from Florida has some comments via Google Voice in response to Peter's post from Monday on Mac prices. This of course reminds me to remind you that you...
Check out the ad below for the Motorola Droid phone, which runs, naturally, Google's Android, and is coming soon to Verizon. I first noticed it on TV last night, though...
Hot on the heels of its knockout earnings report from last night, Apple is seizing more attention today with a significant upgrade to its consumer PC lines, specifically the entry-level...
Apple had plenty of highlights to impart on its earnings conference call with analysts today. The company enjoyed its highest profit margins ever, recorded record Mac and iPhone sales, and...
Apple once again trounced the expectations of analysts in reporting results for its fiscal fourth quarter ended Sept. 26. The company reported revenues that grew 25% over the same quarter...
A blog on the daily doings of Apple and the many companies in its orbit, with insight and analysis by two longtime Apple-watchers BusinessWeek Senior Writer Peter Burrows and BusinessWeek.com Senior Technology Writer Arik Hesseldahl.
