Apple's September 9 mega-press event is fast approaching -- and the rumor mill and pundit speculation are at a fever pitch. I certainly have entered the fray in separate interviews in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc.
One central theme in all of this pre-event hype is Apple's inevitable launch of its own Netflix-like subscription streaming video service -- will (or won't) it happen on Wednesday? I just published my own Apple v. Netflix 5-factor analysis in a head-to-head showdown when it does -- and, my headline was, "Maybe Apple Should Just Buy Netflix."
But, here's the thing -- Apple won't buy Netflix. But, Apple may buy Hulu (and it wouldn't be beyond the pale that Apple announces that on Wednesday).
Here are 5 reasons why an Apple/Hulu mega-deal would make sense -- and why Apple's not-too-distant acquisition of Beats on the music side is both consistent and highly instructive on this tantalizing possibility:
(1) Hulu gives Apple the immediate mass of content (and related rights) it needs. It is no secret that Apple has been challenged in its content negotiations with studios and broadcasters for the streaming rights it need (just like it was on the music side). That has delayed Apple's "Netflix Killer" over and over again. Hulu (like Beats Music) would solve that problem immediately at mass scale.
(2) Hulu gives Apple the immediate marquee differentiating content it needs. Hulu has been on bender lately buying up exclusive premium marquee video content and television rights at significant price-tags. Cases in point include South Park ($192 million for 5 years), Seinfeld ($160 million for 5 years), and last week's coup of stealing away Epix cable movie rights from Netflix. A new boldness at Hulu is in the air -- highly differentiated from its appetite in the past. Was this all simply part of plan to better position itself to Apple (and potential other mega-buyers)? Certainly, Hulu has actively flirted with the idea of being acquired for several years now (that has been big news in Hollywood for years). This may be the time. Previously, those who woo-d Hulu (including Yahoo! and several media behemoths) didn't step up to the plate to meet the bold demands of Hulu's media owners (Disney, Fox and NBCUniversal). Apple, with its mega-$200 million cash hoard certainly is in a position to be significantly more aggressive. It certainly was with Beats -- spending a cool $3 billion (which is significantly more than any purported Hulu offers previously).
(3) Hulu gives Apple the immediate core creative and production expertise it needs for its inevitable "Originals" strategy. The buzz about Hollywood this past week centered around Apple's reported newly-rejuvinated plans to develop its own premium original movies and series a la HBO, Netflix, Amazon ... and Hulu. I was interviewed this past week over and over again about this captivating rumor, underscoring how critical and fundamental an effective originals programming strategy is to differentiate any one service from the growing field of mega streaming competitors. Hulu -- which already features a deep slate of original programming -- has those chops (and the relationships that go with them). Let's not forget -- Apple still is first and foremost a technology company -- it critically needs that Hollywood expertise and those authentic relationships with the creative community. Hulu immediately solves that problem (just like Beats did on the music side with Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre -- critical creative and relationship elements to that deal). Apple should (and likely will) augment that expertise further by buying an innovative, connected premium marquee production house (and the talent that goes with it) in an effort to "out-marquee" all others.
(4) Hulu gives Apple an immediate widely-recognized video brand and immediate mass distribution. Yes, everyone knows (and uses) Netflix. But, everyone also knows Hulu. It is a widely-known -- and increasingly widely-respected -- brand (especially now as more and more exclusive compelling premium content is available on its platform). Hulu also -- importantly -- already is featured on most significant non-Apple distribution platforms. Yes, I know, Apple dropped the Beats brand when it recast that music streaming service as Apple Music. But, remember, Beats Music had launched only months before Apple's acquisition (and didn't yet build its own significant user base yet and the "goodwill" associated with it). And, let's also not forget that Apple DID retain the Beats brand for headphones -- its established business that had built up a significant customer base and goodwill. So, it certainly is no longer unprecedented for Apple to feature a different brand name. Hulu's brand is fundamentally different from the Beats Music service brand. It is an established premium video brand, as well as a respected video service with mass scale, goodwill and a generally applauded customer experience (an Apple hallmark). Hulu's "Swiss" non-Apple brand is beneficial to further expand the service beyond the Apple platform. And then, of course -- in the big inevitable shot across the bow to Netflix -- Hulu (in the hands of Apple) would also be the headline primary featured service on Apple TV and in the overall closed Apple eco-system. Others may still exist on that platform (as they do now), but they would be buried into relative obscurity. You can be sure of that. Membership has its privileges -- and Apple controls what we see on its platform (and in its retail stores). That, of course, significantly impacts what service we use (and the switching costs from Netflix to Apple are minimal in this subscription streaming game). Compelling.
(5) Hulu gives Apple a significantly more cost-effective way to enter the streaming video market at mass scale. Yes, Apple could afford to buy Netflix (as I pointed out in my recent blog post). But, Hulu would be massively more cost-effective (by a significant multiple). Again, Apple's Beats deal is highly instructive in this regard. Apple could have easily bought the market mega-leader in the streaming music space -- i.e., Spotify. But, that move would likely have carried a $10-$15 billion price-tag (since Spotify's last round valued the company at $8+ billion). Instead, Apple paid $3 billion for Beats (and got the lucrative headphone business to go with it). Apple likely could buy Hulu for something more in the $4-$6 billion range (previous reported Hulu M&A discussions indicated that a $2 billion-ish price likely would have closed the deal). Netflix, which trades at around a $42 billion market cap (as of this past Friday), likely would cost $60-$80 billion. And, although Apple holds $200 billion in cash, that massive differential (between Hulu and Netflix) matters -- especially if Apple gets many of the ingredients it needs via Hulu. Apple also could sweeten the pot to further entice Hulu's owners (i.e., the studios) to consent to the transfer of Hulu's content licenses to Apple by giving them some equity in the newly-acquired company to give them a piece of the action -- and to make Hollywood a bit more amenable to licensing its content to Hulu as a result in the future. Again, membership has its privileges.
So, will Tim Cook announce a Hulu deal on Wednesday? I absolutely believe he will make some kind of major strategic video content announcement as part of his Apple TV "main event." But, I peg odds of this intriguing Hulu possibility as being small ... for now.
However, that doesn't mean it's not a logical move. Nor does that mean that it won't eventually happen. Apple understands it needs to enter the streaming video service game now in a big, big way. There is no time to wait any longer. Netflix has simply gotten too big, too fast. It ultimately saw the same writing on the wall on the music side. Spotify had simply gotten too big, too fast. So, Apple finally made is long overdue move with Beats.
Apple will make a massive move on the video side too. That is inevitable. Hulu could be that move. And, when it does, its vastly different (and significantly more compelling) underlying business model from Netflix's will be a significant advantage (see point 5 in my recent blog post which discusses that oft-overlooked point).
Ladies and gentlemen, buckle your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
But, an incredibly dramatic and exciting one as well ....
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Apple. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Apple. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 06 September 2015
Selasa, 01 September 2015
Apple v. Netflix (Or, Maybe Apple Should Just Buy Netflix)
Well, the grand-daddy of all digital media rumors is back again. Yesterday, Variety reported that Apple's quest to build its long-anticipated "Netflix Killer" is hot again in Cupertino. More specifically, that Apple too -- like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and virtually all OTTs and MCNs these days -- plans to "do an HBO" to accomplish its mission (i.e., have a significant focus on creating its own exclusive original programming to woo customers away from the other established streaming video services).
Variety's article is new, but certainly the inevitability of Apple entering the premium streaming video game -- as well as the article's focus on Apple's quest to create compelling and differentiating original content -- is not (I have written about it several times). And, much like Apple finally choosing to focus on buying/building its own "Spotify Killer" on the subscription streaming side for music (and finally recognizing that the times had moved away from a "pay per download" model), Apple at long last will go the same route for video (initially focusing on longer-form premium video content like movies and series).
With this most recent story now breaking before Apple's upcoming announcements, it is worth revisiting my earlier analysis where I pit Apple v. Netflix. In that direct battle royale -- which absolutely will happen -- who wins? Let's analyze 5 individual battles that define that war.
(1) Content/Programming -- Let's take Apple first. Apple will offer (i) both VOD and live/linear TV (Netflix only offers VOD), and (ii) both ESPN and HBO, the two premium channels that matter most (Netflix doesn't). How does Netflix counter this attack? In two ways (i) exclusive original "must have" programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (although -- as I wrote months ago -- you can bet Apple absolutely will get into that "originals" game as well (and smartly fast-track those efforts by buying a high-end and highly-respected production house with deep relationships -- or perhaps even buy a major Hollywood studio), and (ii) a significant depth of content that Apple will not have ... at least for a long time. Advantage Apple.
(2) Distribution -- Apple's ecosystem is closed. Netflix's is open. That means that Apple's OTT video service will be bundled only into Apple products, whereas Netflix comes with virtually everyone else (including Apple TV -- although you can bet that Apple's Netflix-Killer will be front and center and free (at least for a while) on Apple TV's when it launches). So, Netflix's sheer reach significantly outdistances Apple. Oh yes, and Netflix already has built a massive customer base -- and is growing fast internationally. Advantage Netflix.
(3) User Experience -- Virtually everyone on the planet has Netflix. It's part of our Zeitgeist and its UI is practically burned into our brains. So, it is easy to use. But, Apple's hallmark is user experience -- a UI/UX that is both "pretty" (yes, that matters) and intuitive/easy. And -- and this is a critical "and" -- Apple can do (and does) what Netflix and others can't. It seamlessly integrates software/services with its hardware (including Apple TV). That means that Apple's new OTT video service will be front and center and easier to use. Advantage Apple.
(4) Price -- Netflix charges $8.99 monthly for new users, whereas Apple's "killer" service likely will cost significantly more. ESPN alone costs cable/satellite operators about $6 monthly per sub. Advantage Netflix.
So, we have a draw here, right?
(5) Business Model -- Well, here's the ultimate rub. The companies' fundamentally divergent business models.
Neflix is a pure-play video service. The company monetizes its service only. That is its business model -- and that means that it must be profitable based on subscription revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to effectively mine its treasure trove of customer data).
Apple's business model is fundamentally different. For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins. You see, Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's. It is hardware pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?). That means that Apple's new video service is essentially a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales. That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs -- and original programming efforts -- in order to keep its subscription pricing down. Apple's massive cash hoard offers a lot of highly coveted freedom that others simply don't have.
How does Netflix match that? Maybe, Apple simply buys Netflix with all that cash -- after all, as massive as Netflix is, its market cap is a downright paltry $49 billion compared to Apple's $643 billion, which includes about $200 billion in cash). Now THAT would change the media landscape ....
Variety's article is new, but certainly the inevitability of Apple entering the premium streaming video game -- as well as the article's focus on Apple's quest to create compelling and differentiating original content -- is not (I have written about it several times). And, much like Apple finally choosing to focus on buying/building its own "Spotify Killer" on the subscription streaming side for music (and finally recognizing that the times had moved away from a "pay per download" model), Apple at long last will go the same route for video (initially focusing on longer-form premium video content like movies and series).
With this most recent story now breaking before Apple's upcoming announcements, it is worth revisiting my earlier analysis where I pit Apple v. Netflix. In that direct battle royale -- which absolutely will happen -- who wins? Let's analyze 5 individual battles that define that war.
(1) Content/Programming -- Let's take Apple first. Apple will offer (i) both VOD and live/linear TV (Netflix only offers VOD), and (ii) both ESPN and HBO, the two premium channels that matter most (Netflix doesn't). How does Netflix counter this attack? In two ways (i) exclusive original "must have" programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (although -- as I wrote months ago -- you can bet Apple absolutely will get into that "originals" game as well (and smartly fast-track those efforts by buying a high-end and highly-respected production house with deep relationships -- or perhaps even buy a major Hollywood studio), and (ii) a significant depth of content that Apple will not have ... at least for a long time. Advantage Apple.
(2) Distribution -- Apple's ecosystem is closed. Netflix's is open. That means that Apple's OTT video service will be bundled only into Apple products, whereas Netflix comes with virtually everyone else (including Apple TV -- although you can bet that Apple's Netflix-Killer will be front and center and free (at least for a while) on Apple TV's when it launches). So, Netflix's sheer reach significantly outdistances Apple. Oh yes, and Netflix already has built a massive customer base -- and is growing fast internationally. Advantage Netflix.
(3) User Experience -- Virtually everyone on the planet has Netflix. It's part of our Zeitgeist and its UI is practically burned into our brains. So, it is easy to use. But, Apple's hallmark is user experience -- a UI/UX that is both "pretty" (yes, that matters) and intuitive/easy. And -- and this is a critical "and" -- Apple can do (and does) what Netflix and others can't. It seamlessly integrates software/services with its hardware (including Apple TV). That means that Apple's new OTT video service will be front and center and easier to use. Advantage Apple.
(4) Price -- Netflix charges $8.99 monthly for new users, whereas Apple's "killer" service likely will cost significantly more. ESPN alone costs cable/satellite operators about $6 monthly per sub. Advantage Netflix.
So, we have a draw here, right?
(5) Business Model -- Well, here's the ultimate rub. The companies' fundamentally divergent business models.
Neflix is a pure-play video service. The company monetizes its service only. That is its business model -- and that means that it must be profitable based on subscription revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to effectively mine its treasure trove of customer data).
Apple's business model is fundamentally different. For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins. You see, Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's. It is hardware pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?). That means that Apple's new video service is essentially a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales. That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs -- and original programming efforts -- in order to keep its subscription pricing down. Apple's massive cash hoard offers a lot of highly coveted freedom that others simply don't have.
How does Netflix match that? Maybe, Apple simply buys Netflix with all that cash -- after all, as massive as Netflix is, its market cap is a downright paltry $49 billion compared to Apple's $643 billion, which includes about $200 billion in cash). Now THAT would change the media landscape ....
Selasa, 09 Juni 2015
Spotify's Hangover From Apple's Hard Cider -- 5 Daunting Dilemmas
It's the morning after yesterday's Apple WWDC bender. Spotify, how's your head? May be time to grasp for that Motrin -- because it's now officially "game on" with Apple Music (Cupertino's decidedly non-Beats music subscription streaming service announced yesterday and launching June 30th).
Spotify, yes you have a 15 million paid subscription lead over Tim Cook's gang.
But, here's what Apple has that you don't:
(1) Fundamentally more business freedom as a result of a business model that you can never match. Apple Music is one big advertisement for Apple hardware (iPhones, Macs) -- a marketing expense, if you will. Apple Music can be a success even if it doesn't generate a single stand-alone $1 of profit. You, Spotify, can't say that. Here's my earlier detailed analysis that lays this all out. Here's my earlier analysis that lays this all out in the context of Apple's inevitable OTT video service vs. Netflix (just insert "Spotify" in place of "Netflix" in my digital media version of Mad Libs) (and here's a second "bonus" analysis that adds further color). You have only one obvious antidote to cure that ill -- and that is to be acquired by another "big fish" with an Apple-like multi-pronged business model (Google, Amazon, Samsung anyone?).
(2) Native distribution via Apple's ownership of the OS, iOS 9 that is. Apple Music comes natively to iPhones and Macs with new iOS 9. That's a lot of immediate and pervasive distribution (i.e., virtual real estate) that Spotify can't match. Let's face it, membership has its privileges. (And one more important thing, Apple Music will not exclusively be for the Apple core anymore -- it will be available for Android too in a few ... kind of like when iTunes crossed the chasm 10 years ago into the world of PCs, a seismic strategic shift proudly enabled by my former company Musicmatch);
(3) Massive marketing dollars & "real" real estate outside your grasp. How about this for a 1-2 punch? Apple Music surrounding you both natively and online on iPhones and Macs, but also in offline real estate -- i.e., in Apple's stores around the world. Expect to be bombarded with Apple Music pitches (elegantly, of course) with every breath you take, and every move you make in the store near you -- and also via the Apple marketing machine turned up to "11" everywhere you glance (on TV, buses, subways, billboards, cabs, pedi-cabs ....). There will be no escape.
(4) Significantly deeper and "invested" artist relations. Apple Music has Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre leading the way in its overall artist-first narrative (and many of the service's announced features leverage that positioning). Spotify, on the other hand, can count a very vocal and very bitter Taylor Swift. You see, family heritage also matters -- and Spotify's hails from a distant land (foreign to most major music artists, at least) and proudly proclaims its tech-first bent -- while Apple and Jobs always (from the very beginning) played to artist sensibilities and were Californians just like many of them;
(5) Direct immersive artist-fan engagement opportunities to enable deeper connections and ultimately deeper monetization. In fact, Apple calls this new feature "Connect" -- with the immediate benefit being that all artist social feeds are brought together in one place. But, more interesting is the tantalizing possibility of artists giving their fans what they really want -- and that is, special access to them! Rabid fans will pay for rapid access. Rhapsody's recent deal with BandPage hints to these exciting new possibilities (here is my separate post about that new deal). Artists win. Fans win. Apple wins.
Spotify. Make no mistake. Apple's threat is real. It is daunting. And, just because Apple Radio and Beats Music have done no damage to you or Pandora, doesn't mean that Apple Music will meet that same fate. Apple is invested in every possible way to see Apple Music succeed. It paid $3 billion for Beats. But, much more than that, iTunes has been the "soul" of Apple (and the foundation for its rocket launch to becoming the #1 valued company in the world) for the past decade. Apple Music is its hope ... nay, its mission! ... to transition effectively away from the download-driven world of yesterday to the subscription streaming-driven world of today and tomorrow. In other words, Apple must succeed.
So Spotify, what's your next move, especially when daunting dilemmas #1, #2 and #3 are simply out of your reach by definition? You are betting big on video of course to expand your current one-dimensional business model (here's my recent post about that major new strategic move). But, will that be enough, especially when Apple inevitably launches its own "Netflix Killer" OTT video service later this year? (More on that Apple v. Netflix discussion here.)
Or, will you need a little help from your friends ... the other 800 pound tech gorillas who feel threatened like you do today?
Spotify, yes you have a 15 million paid subscription lead over Tim Cook's gang.
But, here's what Apple has that you don't:
(1) Fundamentally more business freedom as a result of a business model that you can never match. Apple Music is one big advertisement for Apple hardware (iPhones, Macs) -- a marketing expense, if you will. Apple Music can be a success even if it doesn't generate a single stand-alone $1 of profit. You, Spotify, can't say that. Here's my earlier detailed analysis that lays this all out. Here's my earlier analysis that lays this all out in the context of Apple's inevitable OTT video service vs. Netflix (just insert "Spotify" in place of "Netflix" in my digital media version of Mad Libs) (and here's a second "bonus" analysis that adds further color). You have only one obvious antidote to cure that ill -- and that is to be acquired by another "big fish" with an Apple-like multi-pronged business model (Google, Amazon, Samsung anyone?).
(2) Native distribution via Apple's ownership of the OS, iOS 9 that is. Apple Music comes natively to iPhones and Macs with new iOS 9. That's a lot of immediate and pervasive distribution (i.e., virtual real estate) that Spotify can't match. Let's face it, membership has its privileges. (And one more important thing, Apple Music will not exclusively be for the Apple core anymore -- it will be available for Android too in a few ... kind of like when iTunes crossed the chasm 10 years ago into the world of PCs, a seismic strategic shift proudly enabled by my former company Musicmatch);
(3) Massive marketing dollars & "real" real estate outside your grasp. How about this for a 1-2 punch? Apple Music surrounding you both natively and online on iPhones and Macs, but also in offline real estate -- i.e., in Apple's stores around the world. Expect to be bombarded with Apple Music pitches (elegantly, of course) with every breath you take, and every move you make in the store near you -- and also via the Apple marketing machine turned up to "11" everywhere you glance (on TV, buses, subways, billboards, cabs, pedi-cabs ....). There will be no escape.
(4) Significantly deeper and "invested" artist relations. Apple Music has Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre leading the way in its overall artist-first narrative (and many of the service's announced features leverage that positioning). Spotify, on the other hand, can count a very vocal and very bitter Taylor Swift. You see, family heritage also matters -- and Spotify's hails from a distant land (foreign to most major music artists, at least) and proudly proclaims its tech-first bent -- while Apple and Jobs always (from the very beginning) played to artist sensibilities and were Californians just like many of them;
(5) Direct immersive artist-fan engagement opportunities to enable deeper connections and ultimately deeper monetization. In fact, Apple calls this new feature "Connect" -- with the immediate benefit being that all artist social feeds are brought together in one place. But, more interesting is the tantalizing possibility of artists giving their fans what they really want -- and that is, special access to them! Rabid fans will pay for rapid access. Rhapsody's recent deal with BandPage hints to these exciting new possibilities (here is my separate post about that new deal). Artists win. Fans win. Apple wins.
Spotify. Make no mistake. Apple's threat is real. It is daunting. And, just because Apple Radio and Beats Music have done no damage to you or Pandora, doesn't mean that Apple Music will meet that same fate. Apple is invested in every possible way to see Apple Music succeed. It paid $3 billion for Beats. But, much more than that, iTunes has been the "soul" of Apple (and the foundation for its rocket launch to becoming the #1 valued company in the world) for the past decade. Apple Music is its hope ... nay, its mission! ... to transition effectively away from the download-driven world of yesterday to the subscription streaming-driven world of today and tomorrow. In other words, Apple must succeed.
So Spotify, what's your next move, especially when daunting dilemmas #1, #2 and #3 are simply out of your reach by definition? You are betting big on video of course to expand your current one-dimensional business model (here's my recent post about that major new strategic move). But, will that be enough, especially when Apple inevitably launches its own "Netflix Killer" OTT video service later this year? (More on that Apple v. Netflix discussion here.)
Or, will you need a little help from your friends ... the other 800 pound tech gorillas who feel threatened like you do today?
Rabu, 03 Juni 2015
USA TODAY's Jefferson Graham - My EXCLUSIVE Audio Interview (The "Next Big Thing" In Tech)
Yesterday, USA Today's long-time lead tech reporter, Jefferson Graham, interviewed me about all things Apple in advance of next week's WWDC -- iTunes Music, Apple TV, iOS 9 (here is the link to his interview). Following my interview, I bumped into him at a local Greek Restaurant -- and turned the tables on him. This is my interview of Jefferson about how USA Today's historical print business -- and his professional life -- have been fundamentally transformed by the mobile-driven digital transformation of media and entertainment about which I continuously write. All tech and digital media roads lead to Jefferson. So, his candid insights are worth listening to (despite our occasional chewing ...) -- including what he calls the most exciting thing in tech right now. Listen on ....
Selasa, 02 Juni 2015
Apple Watch! WWDC Preview & Predictions, That Is ...
Apple Watch! No, not the Watch itself -- but rather "watch" as in your local station's "Storm Watch" (anytime a drop of rain is expected) -- as in my preview of (and predictions for) Apple's upcoming World-Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) next week. All eyes in the business world will obsessively fixate on San Francisco once again, as Tim Cook kicks off on June 8th what everyone hopes to be "the next big thing" in our increasingly tech-hungry lives.
So, will it be the kind of "big thing" that will excite the Apple flock? And, if so, what will "IT" be? (I discuss that question with USA TODAY's Jefferson Graham later today on his video show -- and then, once again, Thursday night LIVE at 5 pm Pacific/8 pm Eastern on his "Talking Tech" radio show via TuneIn Radio).
Four big buckets of announcements are expected -- (1) Apple Watch, (2) iTunes Music, (3) Apple TV, and (4) iOS9.
(1) APPLE WATCH -- No big surprises here. Tim Cook will update us all on the expected massive initial numbers for Apple's latest product expansion (and also impress us all with the increasing number of native apps that require no iPhone link). (I just got mine shipped this past week and am wearing it now for the first time as I write this -- that is mine in the picture above -- NOTE to Cupertino: I tried to change the time to 6:08 to make it more relevant to Tim Cook's June 8th keynote, but the settings weren't very intuitive).
(2) ITUNES MUSIC -- Apple bought Beats last year for $3 billion for a reason -- and, this reason finally comes to light next week when Apple announces its new "Spotify Killer" $10/month subscription service. No ad-free alternative here -- it's all-or-nothing with this new service (although a limited free trial period is expected). So, what is Apple's "special sauce" to make a dent in the Spotify machine? Actually, the Apple core has a good story to tell here.
First -- the Apple juggernaut is just that ... a juggernaut. It is a marketing machine -- with both online and offline (retail) channels. Spotify can't compete with that. If Apple wants to make a dent, it can by its sheer heft. It can simply throw gazillions of dollars at the problem/opportunity. There is nothing else like it. That's the beauty of being the most valuable company in the world. Short-term losses are no problem if they lead to long-term success. And, Apple's tantalizing prospect is to convert a significant portion of its 110 million iTunes users (who spend an average of $30/year) to a subscription model (yielding $120/year instead). Which leads me to my next point ...
... Second, unlike Spotify, Apple's iTunes subscription service can be a success even if it loses money because, ultimately, it functions as marketing for Apple hardware (iPhones, Apple Watches, etc.) (Here's my separate relevant discussion/analysis in the context of Apple v. Netflix of why this is the case). Spotify doesn't have that luxury. Spotify must make money from the service itself -- and, that hasn't happened yet (no matter how massive it is -- with 86% of the U.S. on demand streaming market, 15 million paying subs worldwide, and $1 billion annual revenues).
Third -- and more important than most people think -- unlike Spotify, Apple takes great strides to portray itself as being creator and artist-friendly -- and that matters. Spotify proudly trumpets its emotion-free tech-first heritage -- and has lost some allies along the way because of it (Taylor Swift, anyone?). But, emotional appeal matters -- because humans (especially artists!) are emotional. Apple's fearless leader Steve Jobs set the tone in this regard by smartly placing artists first in his initial iTunes/iPod marketing (which was natural, since he was very much an artist himself). And Apple's Tim Cook stayed true to this DNA when he bought Beats in significant part to bring Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre into the fold (and, consequently, all of those other artists who respect them). By doing that, Cook bought numerous allies that can help him shape a differentiated user/listener experience. Listen closely next week. That artist savvy will permeate discussion and functionality of the new service (with significant impacts to Pandora as well).
(3) APPLE TV -- everyone expects Apple TV to get a major face-lift next week (clues in this regard were obvious in the WWDC invitation itself), but how "major" will that face-lift be? Will "IT" simply be "a better little square box" -- or will it be the long-anticipated full-fledged all-in-one beautiful flat-screen iTV? As much as I would like to say the latter, I don't expect it ... yet (although that day will come). But, the Apple TV "hobby" we know and love (at least some) will have more power ... including new features like Siri integration and initial hints to home automation ... and, most significantly, may even come with its own new OTT streaming service (aka "Netflix Killer"). Apple has long faced major hurdles with studios and broadcasters to license a critical mass of content -- and those challenges continue -- so it's not certain that Cook will yet announce the on-demand streaming video service. But, I think he will. Cupertino lawyers are feverishly trying to ink those final deals right now -- and they can be persuasive (after all, Apple's war chest doesn't hurt).
But, once Apple does launch its inevitable OTT video service, can it make a dent in the Netflix machine?
I absolutely think it can -- and for many of the same reasons that apply in the music/Spotify discussion above. In fact, I previously wrote about Apple v. Netflix at length -- analyzing the threat Apple poses to the market leader. Definitely worthy of a read (as self-promotional as that sounds). And, don't forget, Apple's inevitable OTT video service will feature both VOD and live linear TV (including ESPN). Netflix certainly doesn't have that.
(4) iOS 9 -- Virtually everyone expects new iOS 9 to be announced next week -- which makes sense since it is a developers conference after all. Yes, this ain't the sexy stuff, but it is still "stuff" that matters to us all -- because the OS defines our individual user experiences.
Any major "gasp"-worthy new functionality in iOS 9? Not really (although there is some chatter about some early Augmented Reality (AR) functionality) -- which follows Apple's recent purchase of AR company Metaio. Performance will be optimized -- and some "nice to haves" that many others have already discussed. But, it's always nice to get new features.
So, will it be the kind of "big thing" that will excite the Apple flock? And, if so, what will "IT" be? (I discuss that question with USA TODAY's Jefferson Graham later today on his video show -- and then, once again, Thursday night LIVE at 5 pm Pacific/8 pm Eastern on his "Talking Tech" radio show via TuneIn Radio).
Four big buckets of announcements are expected -- (1) Apple Watch, (2) iTunes Music, (3) Apple TV, and (4) iOS9.
(1) APPLE WATCH -- No big surprises here. Tim Cook will update us all on the expected massive initial numbers for Apple's latest product expansion (and also impress us all with the increasing number of native apps that require no iPhone link). (I just got mine shipped this past week and am wearing it now for the first time as I write this -- that is mine in the picture above -- NOTE to Cupertino: I tried to change the time to 6:08 to make it more relevant to Tim Cook's June 8th keynote, but the settings weren't very intuitive).
(2) ITUNES MUSIC -- Apple bought Beats last year for $3 billion for a reason -- and, this reason finally comes to light next week when Apple announces its new "Spotify Killer" $10/month subscription service. No ad-free alternative here -- it's all-or-nothing with this new service (although a limited free trial period is expected). So, what is Apple's "special sauce" to make a dent in the Spotify machine? Actually, the Apple core has a good story to tell here.
First -- the Apple juggernaut is just that ... a juggernaut. It is a marketing machine -- with both online and offline (retail) channels. Spotify can't compete with that. If Apple wants to make a dent, it can by its sheer heft. It can simply throw gazillions of dollars at the problem/opportunity. There is nothing else like it. That's the beauty of being the most valuable company in the world. Short-term losses are no problem if they lead to long-term success. And, Apple's tantalizing prospect is to convert a significant portion of its 110 million iTunes users (who spend an average of $30/year) to a subscription model (yielding $120/year instead). Which leads me to my next point ...
... Second, unlike Spotify, Apple's iTunes subscription service can be a success even if it loses money because, ultimately, it functions as marketing for Apple hardware (iPhones, Apple Watches, etc.) (Here's my separate relevant discussion/analysis in the context of Apple v. Netflix of why this is the case). Spotify doesn't have that luxury. Spotify must make money from the service itself -- and, that hasn't happened yet (no matter how massive it is -- with 86% of the U.S. on demand streaming market, 15 million paying subs worldwide, and $1 billion annual revenues).
Third -- and more important than most people think -- unlike Spotify, Apple takes great strides to portray itself as being creator and artist-friendly -- and that matters. Spotify proudly trumpets its emotion-free tech-first heritage -- and has lost some allies along the way because of it (Taylor Swift, anyone?). But, emotional appeal matters -- because humans (especially artists!) are emotional. Apple's fearless leader Steve Jobs set the tone in this regard by smartly placing artists first in his initial iTunes/iPod marketing (which was natural, since he was very much an artist himself). And Apple's Tim Cook stayed true to this DNA when he bought Beats in significant part to bring Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre into the fold (and, consequently, all of those other artists who respect them). By doing that, Cook bought numerous allies that can help him shape a differentiated user/listener experience. Listen closely next week. That artist savvy will permeate discussion and functionality of the new service (with significant impacts to Pandora as well).
(3) APPLE TV -- everyone expects Apple TV to get a major face-lift next week (clues in this regard were obvious in the WWDC invitation itself), but how "major" will that face-lift be? Will "IT" simply be "a better little square box" -- or will it be the long-anticipated full-fledged all-in-one beautiful flat-screen iTV? As much as I would like to say the latter, I don't expect it ... yet (although that day will come). But, the Apple TV "hobby" we know and love (at least some) will have more power ... including new features like Siri integration and initial hints to home automation ... and, most significantly, may even come with its own new OTT streaming service (aka "Netflix Killer"). Apple has long faced major hurdles with studios and broadcasters to license a critical mass of content -- and those challenges continue -- so it's not certain that Cook will yet announce the on-demand streaming video service. But, I think he will. Cupertino lawyers are feverishly trying to ink those final deals right now -- and they can be persuasive (after all, Apple's war chest doesn't hurt).
But, once Apple does launch its inevitable OTT video service, can it make a dent in the Netflix machine?
I absolutely think it can -- and for many of the same reasons that apply in the music/Spotify discussion above. In fact, I previously wrote about Apple v. Netflix at length -- analyzing the threat Apple poses to the market leader. Definitely worthy of a read (as self-promotional as that sounds). And, don't forget, Apple's inevitable OTT video service will feature both VOD and live linear TV (including ESPN). Netflix certainly doesn't have that.
(4) iOS 9 -- Virtually everyone expects new iOS 9 to be announced next week -- which makes sense since it is a developers conference after all. Yes, this ain't the sexy stuff, but it is still "stuff" that matters to us all -- because the OS defines our individual user experiences.
Any major "gasp"-worthy new functionality in iOS 9? Not really (although there is some chatter about some early Augmented Reality (AR) functionality) -- which follows Apple's recent purchase of AR company Metaio. Performance will be optimized -- and some "nice to haves" that many others have already discussed. But, it's always nice to get new features.
Selasa, 21 April 2015
Tesla - Almost BK & Acquired by Google When I Was Buying My Model S!
Imagine my surprise yesterday when I, a Model S owner, learned for the first time that Tesla was running on fumes and almost BK when I ordered mine in mid-April 2013! That surprise was doubled when I learned that Google's Larry Page and Tesla CEO Elon Musk had reached a handshake deal for Google to bail out Tesla. But, as fate would have it (happily!), Musk's and the company's fortunes turned dramatically upward precisely as the lawyers were papering the deal. In a matter of weeks, Model S "word of mouth" -- and resulting sales -- radically changed, skyrocketing Tesla's stock upward. The company immediately achieved profitability in the ensuing quarter and, as they say, the rest is history. (That's me picking up my Tesla -- at essentially the precise moment when, unbeknownst to all of us -- Tesla's fortunes changed.)
I love my Tesla -- have had it for nearly 2 years now -- and have nearly 40,000 miles on it. I have written several times about it (here is my original post about my buying experience two years ago) -- including my recent post about how the car essentially saved my life, or at least great bodily harm (I really believe it).
I also have frequently predicted that Apple ultimately will buy Tesla because the two companies -- and their respective founders -- share similar DNA (here is my overall analysis of this tantalizing possibility from nearly 2 years ago -- well before such rumors hit the mill).
But, Google? Didn't see that one coming!
Then again, that was long ago ... and in far, far away land.
Tesla is a very different company now of course. And, it will have a radically different outcome ....
I love my Tesla -- have had it for nearly 2 years now -- and have nearly 40,000 miles on it. I have written several times about it (here is my original post about my buying experience two years ago) -- including my recent post about how the car essentially saved my life, or at least great bodily harm (I really believe it).
I also have frequently predicted that Apple ultimately will buy Tesla because the two companies -- and their respective founders -- share similar DNA (here is my overall analysis of this tantalizing possibility from nearly 2 years ago -- well before such rumors hit the mill).
But, Google? Didn't see that one coming!
Then again, that was long ago ... and in far, far away land.
Tesla is a very different company now of course. And, it will have a radically different outcome ....
Kamis, 16 April 2015
Netflix - The Champ's Achilles Heel
![]() |
Netflix is killing it. And its investors are on a high – literally. Its stock is at an all-time high on the heels of reporting its highest quarterly subscriber growth numbers ever. What could go wrong? You have Netflix. I have Netflix. We all have Netflix. And, that “We” is increasingly global (since more than half this past quarter’s growth came from outside U.S. borders).
But, make no mistake. Netflix’s long-term challenges are real, they are daunting, and they come directly from Netflix’s Achilles Heel – its own one-dimensional business model (for an excellent separate detailed analysis of Netflix's relevant metrics and financials, read "The State and Future of Netflx v. HBO in 2015" by Liam Boluk, recently published in Redef).
You see, Netflix is a pure-play video service. The company monetizes that subscription service only. That means that Netflix must be profitable based on content revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to expand beyond that – (more on that later).
Compare that to Apple. Remember them? Oh yeah, digital media’s worst-kept secret is very much alive again -- i.e., Apple hopes to launch its long-anticipated (overdue?) OTT “Netflix Killer” subscription service by fall. Apple's business model is fundamentally different than Netflix's. For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins for the Cupertino crew. Here’s why.
Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's. Apple benefits from multiple revenue streams. And, although the company frequently positions itself more broadly as being a media company, its primary stream is very un-Netflix-ian – it is hardware-driven pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling “cool” metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?). That means that Apple's new subscription video service essentially will be a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales. That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs in order to keep its subscription pricing down. Netflix can’t do that.
So, how scared should Netflix (and its investors) be of Cupertino and the host of other behemoths soon invading Netflix’s OTT turf? And, what can Netflix do?
First, let’s be clear. Netflix has a formidable head start and I’m not saying that the “mother of all OTTs” will go away anytime soon. But, that alone is not enough. After all, unlike Netflix, Apple is expected to offer both VOD AND live/linear TV (likely including both ESPN and HBO). And, switching costs are low (essentially non-existent). All you need to do is go online and cancel.
So, Netflix can try to contain the inevitable Apple threat (and the threat of all other Apple-like behemoths) in at least five ways – the first two of which also lead to diversification:
- Take its formidable lead and find a way to effectively mine and monetize the data it has already collected on all of us;
- Continue to develop and feature kick-ass exclusive original content like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black that can monetize not only via individual subscriptions, but also via global content licensing deals. That original content can also deflect at least some of the Apple threat in a very HBO-like way. After all, will those passionate audiences abandon their favorite characters? Likely not;
- Continue to offer and deepen its pool of content (including via exclusive licensing) that Apple can’t match … at least for a long time;
- Emulate Apple, Sling TV and now also Sony VUE by adding live/linear TV programming to the mix (including the critical ESPN ingredient); and
- Offer lower pricing with an $8.99 monthly new sub charge that Apple and others likely won’t match (after all, under its recently announced deal, Apple will charge Apple TV customers $14.99 for stand-alone OTT HBO Now by itself).
Of course, many of these counter-attacks will be increasingly harder to do based on the significant costs involved – and the pressure they place on Netflix’s Achilles Heel.
But, there’s also always M&A. After all, the much-anticipated Apple threat is not just a threat to Netflix. It is an ear-splitting shot across the bow of myriad global players in the video game. So look around. Which of those players have multi-faceted business models (like Apple), a heavy dose of media in their strategies (like Apple), and plenty of cash to make a run at Netflix? Hmmm … let me think …. Google, Samsung and Amazon come to mind ...
… I’m just sayin’….
Rabu, 01 April 2015
5 Reasons Jay Z's Tidal Has A Shot (at the Title?)
Jay Z and his crashing waves of super-friends just launched Tidal -- the long-anticipated mobile-focused music streaming service. Hot or not? Will Tidal "matter"? Can it? Isn't the much-maligned world of music streaming services over-saturated and under-performing financially as it is (with twin giants Spotify and Pandora still nowhere near profitability under their stand-alone business model)?
Not so fast in this very special case. Here are ...
5 REASONS WHY TIDAL IS BOTH UNIQUE -- AND A FORCE TO BE RECOGNIZED -- FROM DAY 1:
(1) Jay Z -- period, full stop. HE is a force. The force is with him. And just look at his Jedi mind tricks ... his ability to assemble the star power (from all major music genres) on the stage with him at Monday's launch. Imagine the logistics of doing just that alone with all the touring, recording, globe-trotting ... even Madge was there! ... which takes me to reason 2,
(2) United Artists. Remember that iconic major movie company? Hollywood legends Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, among others, financed and birthed that movie company nearly 100 years ago for the same fundamental reason launching the Tidal wave (had to say it at least once) -- i.e., control. Star power drove United Artists' success back then. And, imagine the potential power of the stars here, one century later, to drive magnified success in this new golden age of social media and with their individual mega-massive social followings? Millions upon tens of millions upon hundreds of millions of frenzied followers banded together -- and for the same music "cause." The United Artist precedent and potential is here. And, the artists here are invested (literally!) in Tidal's success and will gladly feed Tidal with exclusive, differentiated content (music, videos, fan interaction, real-world non-virtual and tangible fan experiences) -- content not available anyplace else -- in a case of what Jack Black called "stick-it-to-the-man" in the movie School of Rock. They will also push "the man" (the labels) hard for more artist-friendly economics (and likely share those friendlier economics with all participating artists) ... which takes me to reason 3,
(3) Differentiated User Content & Experience. Think of the story here -- and think of the word "experience" as I lay it out (because consumers pay for "experiences"). First, you have a slick UI (I have played with the mobile version, which immediately reminded me of the look, ease and simplicity that I immediately saw when I first tried Vessel -- another new digital media iconoclast that is focused on video and hell-bent on disrupting YouTube much in the same way that Tidal is dead set on disrupting Spotify). Second, you have (or will have) a deep pool of differentiated exclusive content (as I write in Reason (2) above). And -- contrary to the thinking of some more tech-driven streaming services (Spotify calls itself a technology-first company) -- content (and artist relationships) matter, especially to super-fans. They may not necessarily pay more just to access the same music they can find elsewhere. BUT (and this is a critical "but"), they absolutely will pay to get closer to Jay Z and other artists that matter to them individually -- and for the chance to share in experiences not available anyplace else. THAT too is content my friends! It's just a broader definition of it. Third, you have the much ballyhooed high fidelity experience -- which is both real -- and a great marketing story for both users and artists (Neil Young anyone?). A critical mass of consumers will pay more for quality (Apple products, anyone?) ... which takes me to reason 4,
(4) Tidal Is Beats-ing Apple at Its Own Game. (I kinda' smirk as I write that caption ... forgive me, but one must enjoy simple pleasures!). As I wrote previously when Apple first bought Beats for $3 billion, two key reasons were Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine (and the deep artist cred and relationships they brought to Apple, which is still fundamentally a hardware/tech DNA-based company despite its media trappings). It is that artist visibility, cred, stamp of approval, and overall "cool" that immediately differentiated Apple's coming-soon Beats Music service from the other streaming behemoths. Well, lookie lookie here. Jay-Z paid $56 million for Tidal's "Aspire" platform -- and certainly millions more to spruce it up -- but its star power shines significantly more brightly right here right now. Cupertino is cringing. It's not quite the Dre Day that the good Dr. hoped for ... which brings me to reason 5,
(5) Other Mega-Mobile Players Will Stand Up, Take Notice & Partner with Tidal. Apple has Beats Music. Its business model is to deploy Beats Music as the Trojan Horse to drive incremental and primarily mobile hardware sales (iPhones and iPads) -- its leviathan revenue stream. Countless other mega-companies -- who live in Apple's mobile "space" (and compete directly with the Apple machine) -- need to play that same "music-as-Trojan-Horse" game to fuel their own decidedly non-media core business models. And, that means significant and global distribution partnerships await to propagate Tidal's wave (okay, I said it twice!). Sprint is only the first. Stay tuned for more -- including both wireless operators (like Sprint) and hardware/handset companies (like Samsung, ultimately in lieu of Milk Music?) -- who become smitten by Tidal's sexy story.
To be clear, I am not saying that Tidal will sweep over and drown the competition -- or even "win" and be profitable as a stand-alone business (although many other definitions of "winning" come into play for artists with Tidal, as I allude to above). Other massive players already exist -- Spotify, Pandora, and Apple's coming re-imagined Beats Music.
But, let's be clear. I am saying this (and I ain't April "foo foo foo foolin'" when I say it).
Tidal is real.
Tidal is changing the game.
Tidal is damn interesting ....
Not so fast in this very special case. Here are ...
5 REASONS WHY TIDAL IS BOTH UNIQUE -- AND A FORCE TO BE RECOGNIZED -- FROM DAY 1:
(1) Jay Z -- period, full stop. HE is a force. The force is with him. And just look at his Jedi mind tricks ... his ability to assemble the star power (from all major music genres) on the stage with him at Monday's launch. Imagine the logistics of doing just that alone with all the touring, recording, globe-trotting ... even Madge was there! ... which takes me to reason 2,
(2) United Artists. Remember that iconic major movie company? Hollywood legends Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, among others, financed and birthed that movie company nearly 100 years ago for the same fundamental reason launching the Tidal wave (had to say it at least once) -- i.e., control. Star power drove United Artists' success back then. And, imagine the potential power of the stars here, one century later, to drive magnified success in this new golden age of social media and with their individual mega-massive social followings? Millions upon tens of millions upon hundreds of millions of frenzied followers banded together -- and for the same music "cause." The United Artist precedent and potential is here. And, the artists here are invested (literally!) in Tidal's success and will gladly feed Tidal with exclusive, differentiated content (music, videos, fan interaction, real-world non-virtual and tangible fan experiences) -- content not available anyplace else -- in a case of what Jack Black called "stick-it-to-the-man" in the movie School of Rock. They will also push "the man" (the labels) hard for more artist-friendly economics (and likely share those friendlier economics with all participating artists) ... which takes me to reason 3,
(3) Differentiated User Content & Experience. Think of the story here -- and think of the word "experience" as I lay it out (because consumers pay for "experiences"). First, you have a slick UI (I have played with the mobile version, which immediately reminded me of the look, ease and simplicity that I immediately saw when I first tried Vessel -- another new digital media iconoclast that is focused on video and hell-bent on disrupting YouTube much in the same way that Tidal is dead set on disrupting Spotify). Second, you have (or will have) a deep pool of differentiated exclusive content (as I write in Reason (2) above). And -- contrary to the thinking of some more tech-driven streaming services (Spotify calls itself a technology-first company) -- content (and artist relationships) matter, especially to super-fans. They may not necessarily pay more just to access the same music they can find elsewhere. BUT (and this is a critical "but"), they absolutely will pay to get closer to Jay Z and other artists that matter to them individually -- and for the chance to share in experiences not available anyplace else. THAT too is content my friends! It's just a broader definition of it. Third, you have the much ballyhooed high fidelity experience -- which is both real -- and a great marketing story for both users and artists (Neil Young anyone?). A critical mass of consumers will pay more for quality (Apple products, anyone?) ... which takes me to reason 4,
(4) Tidal Is Beats-ing Apple at Its Own Game. (I kinda' smirk as I write that caption ... forgive me, but one must enjoy simple pleasures!). As I wrote previously when Apple first bought Beats for $3 billion, two key reasons were Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine (and the deep artist cred and relationships they brought to Apple, which is still fundamentally a hardware/tech DNA-based company despite its media trappings). It is that artist visibility, cred, stamp of approval, and overall "cool" that immediately differentiated Apple's coming-soon Beats Music service from the other streaming behemoths. Well, lookie lookie here. Jay-Z paid $56 million for Tidal's "Aspire" platform -- and certainly millions more to spruce it up -- but its star power shines significantly more brightly right here right now. Cupertino is cringing. It's not quite the Dre Day that the good Dr. hoped for ... which brings me to reason 5,
(5) Other Mega-Mobile Players Will Stand Up, Take Notice & Partner with Tidal. Apple has Beats Music. Its business model is to deploy Beats Music as the Trojan Horse to drive incremental and primarily mobile hardware sales (iPhones and iPads) -- its leviathan revenue stream. Countless other mega-companies -- who live in Apple's mobile "space" (and compete directly with the Apple machine) -- need to play that same "music-as-Trojan-Horse" game to fuel their own decidedly non-media core business models. And, that means significant and global distribution partnerships await to propagate Tidal's wave (okay, I said it twice!). Sprint is only the first. Stay tuned for more -- including both wireless operators (like Sprint) and hardware/handset companies (like Samsung, ultimately in lieu of Milk Music?) -- who become smitten by Tidal's sexy story.
To be clear, I am not saying that Tidal will sweep over and drown the competition -- or even "win" and be profitable as a stand-alone business (although many other definitions of "winning" come into play for artists with Tidal, as I allude to above). Other massive players already exist -- Spotify, Pandora, and Apple's coming re-imagined Beats Music.
But, let's be clear. I am saying this (and I ain't April "foo foo foo foolin'" when I say it).
Tidal is real.
Tidal is changing the game.
Tidal is damn interesting ....
Kamis, 26 Maret 2015
Apple v. Netflix & The LA Tech Scene - My Radio Interview with USA Today
NEVERMIND the picture, PLEASE! (I had nothing to do with it, believe me)! Here below is my AUDIO interview with USA Today's leading tech expert Jefferson Graham (and posted by him) in which we discuss (1) Apple v. Netflix (and who will win the "cord cutting wars"), (2) the LA Tech Scene (and why I find it to be both vibrant and extremely gratifying), and (3) Manatt Digital Media (and why I think we can do what others cannot). Jeff's a great guy -- and asks lots of good questions. Hope you enjoy it.
Minggu, 22 Maret 2015
Apple's iTV With Rollable Display This Fall? 4 Tantalizing Clues ...
5 years ago I was one of the first to predict that Apple would invade your living room in the form of an all-in-one beautiful, integrated "iTV" -- which is definitely NOT the Apple TV you know (and 25 million of you love) today. It would be the real deal.
Yes, I was early (way early!) - but, content was always the problem (not the hardware/tech) and timing is finally right for this to happen later this year (just in time for the Xmas season). Several things lead me to this conclusion:
(1) Apple's "hallmark" is seamlessly marrying compelling software/services with beautiful hardware, with the effect being to create what the Apple faithful consider to be the best customer experiences out there. That's why the Apple brand means so much. So, as I have always written, Apple could not enter the real iTV game without first having the compelling content package (including live/linear TV like ESPN and HBO) necessary to pull that kind of user experience off.
Well, now it appears that Apple may have finally cracked that inhibiting code -- with rumors abounding that Apple's "Netflix-Killer" will launch this fall (here's my separate 5-reason analysis why Apple's OTT video service will be a smash hit at launch). As soon as I heard that news, I immediately concluded in my own mind the next logical step -- time was right for the iTV to finally see the light of day.
(2) Giving more credence to me, I was told by a credible source (who, in turn, heard from a credible source -- yes, I concede this is indirect) that the iTV is being manufactured right now and will feature a rollable display -- which truly would revolutionize the mass-market "TV" business. And, Apple generally doesn't release anything -- especially when it is as late as it is here in this TV game -- unless it believes it has a marketing story that is untouchable. And this "hardware as software" headline would be pretty damn good:
THE NEW PORTABLE "ANYWHERE" ITV, WITH ROLLABLE DISPLAY, ESPN & HBO
(3) Steve Jobs always called the current Apple TV a "hobby" -- implying that it was only the prequel to the main event. And, Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs' put an exclamation on this point, underscoring, in Jobs' own words, that he absolutely was going there to build a full-fledged integrated "TV":
“I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use ... It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud. No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it."
(4) And, finally, at Apple's latest major press event a few weeks back, CEO Tim Cook expressly teased about even more compelling things to come later this year -- and he wasn't talking about the Apple Watch. And, it makes sense to me that he drops the price of the current "hobby" Apple TV by $30 in advance of the main event -- think of it as being the Nano-ization of the TV ecosystem. You have a mass market, extremely inexpensive Nano-ized Apple TV (the current one) -- and then you have the fully-featured, fully-priced iPod-like iTV (the coming one).
Yes, the television game is one of historical low margins. But, if Apple has demonstrated anything, it is that consumers are willing to pay significantly higher prices (with significantly higher margins) for its products. The mass market PC (v. Mac) is one prime example. And, don't forget this additional critical piece -- an iTV with an integrated OTT streaming service gives Apple immediate access to a treasure trove of our personal data (viewing habits, etc.) that, in turn, offers the potential to accelerate sales of all Apple products (not just iTVs). In other words, it could be a powerful driver of the entire Apple eco-system.
If true, is Apple done dominating our world wherever we are? Where else can the Cupertino crew take us in its quest for hardware world domination?
On the road, naturally.
Apple's iCar -- Apple buying Tesla -- something I first speculated (and analyzed the logic of) nearly two years ago (well before those rumors abounded).
Yes, I was early (way early!) - but, content was always the problem (not the hardware/tech) and timing is finally right for this to happen later this year (just in time for the Xmas season). Several things lead me to this conclusion:
(1) Apple's "hallmark" is seamlessly marrying compelling software/services with beautiful hardware, with the effect being to create what the Apple faithful consider to be the best customer experiences out there. That's why the Apple brand means so much. So, as I have always written, Apple could not enter the real iTV game without first having the compelling content package (including live/linear TV like ESPN and HBO) necessary to pull that kind of user experience off.
Well, now it appears that Apple may have finally cracked that inhibiting code -- with rumors abounding that Apple's "Netflix-Killer" will launch this fall (here's my separate 5-reason analysis why Apple's OTT video service will be a smash hit at launch). As soon as I heard that news, I immediately concluded in my own mind the next logical step -- time was right for the iTV to finally see the light of day.
(2) Giving more credence to me, I was told by a credible source (who, in turn, heard from a credible source -- yes, I concede this is indirect) that the iTV is being manufactured right now and will feature a rollable display -- which truly would revolutionize the mass-market "TV" business. And, Apple generally doesn't release anything -- especially when it is as late as it is here in this TV game -- unless it believes it has a marketing story that is untouchable. And this "hardware as software" headline would be pretty damn good:
THE NEW PORTABLE "ANYWHERE" ITV, WITH ROLLABLE DISPLAY, ESPN & HBO
(3) Steve Jobs always called the current Apple TV a "hobby" -- implying that it was only the prequel to the main event. And, Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs' put an exclamation on this point, underscoring, in Jobs' own words, that he absolutely was going there to build a full-fledged integrated "TV":
“I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use ... It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud. No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it."
(4) And, finally, at Apple's latest major press event a few weeks back, CEO Tim Cook expressly teased about even more compelling things to come later this year -- and he wasn't talking about the Apple Watch. And, it makes sense to me that he drops the price of the current "hobby" Apple TV by $30 in advance of the main event -- think of it as being the Nano-ization of the TV ecosystem. You have a mass market, extremely inexpensive Nano-ized Apple TV (the current one) -- and then you have the fully-featured, fully-priced iPod-like iTV (the coming one).
Yes, the television game is one of historical low margins. But, if Apple has demonstrated anything, it is that consumers are willing to pay significantly higher prices (with significantly higher margins) for its products. The mass market PC (v. Mac) is one prime example. And, don't forget this additional critical piece -- an iTV with an integrated OTT streaming service gives Apple immediate access to a treasure trove of our personal data (viewing habits, etc.) that, in turn, offers the potential to accelerate sales of all Apple products (not just iTVs). In other words, it could be a powerful driver of the entire Apple eco-system.
If true, is Apple done dominating our world wherever we are? Where else can the Cupertino crew take us in its quest for hardware world domination?
On the road, naturally.
Apple's iCar -- Apple buying Tesla -- something I first speculated (and analyzed the logic of) nearly two years ago (well before those rumors abounded).
Kamis, 19 Maret 2015
Apple v. Netflix - Who Wins? 5-Factor Analysis
Yesterday, I laid out 5 reasons why Apple's newly-rumored "Netflix-Killer" will be an immediate smash hit when it launches.
But, in a direct battle royale, who wins? Let's analyze 5 individual battles that define the war.
(1) Content/Programming -- Let's take Apple first. Apple will offer (i) both VOD and live/linear TV (Netflix only offers VOD), and (ii) both ESPN and HBO, the two premium channels that matter most (Netflix doesn't). How does Netflix counter this attack? In two ways (i) exclusive original "must have" programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (although you can bet Apple will get into that game as well - perhaps even buy a studio?), and (ii) a significant depth of content that Apple will not have ... at least for a long time. Advantage Apple.
(2) Distribution -- Apple's ecosystem is closed. Netflix's is open. That means that Apple's OTT video service will be bundled only into Apple products, whereas Netflix comes with virtually everyone else (including Apple TV -- although you can bet that Apple's Netflix-Killer will be front and center and free (at least for a while) on Apple TV's when it launches). So, Netflix's sheer reach significantly outdistances Apple. Oh yes, and Netflix already has built a massive customer base -- and is growing fast internationally. Advantage Netflix.
(3) User Experience -- Virtually everyone on the planet has Netflix. It's part of our Zeitgeist and its UI is practically burned into our brains. So, it is easy to use. But, Apple's hallmark is user experience -- a UI/UX that is both "pretty" (yes, that matters) and intuitive/easy. And -- and this is a critical "and" -- Apple can do (and does) what Netflix and others can't. It seamlessly integrates software/services with its hardware (including Apple TV). That means that Apple's new OTT video service will be front and center and easier to use. Advantage Apple.
(4) Price -- Netflix charges $8.99 monthly for new users, whereas Apple's "killer" service inevitably will cost significantly more. ESPN alone costs cable/satellite operators about $6 monthly per sub. Advantage Netflix.
So, we have a draw here, right?
Well, here's the ultimate rub. The companies' fundamentally divergent business models.
Neflix is a pure-play video service. The company monetizes its service only. That is its business model -- and that means that it must be profitable based on subscription revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to effectively mine its treasure trove of customer data).
Apple's business model is fundamentally different. For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins. You see, Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's. It is hardware pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?). That means that Apple's new video service is essentially a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales. That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs in order to keep its subscription pricing down.
How does Netflix match that?
But, in a direct battle royale, who wins? Let's analyze 5 individual battles that define the war.
(1) Content/Programming -- Let's take Apple first. Apple will offer (i) both VOD and live/linear TV (Netflix only offers VOD), and (ii) both ESPN and HBO, the two premium channels that matter most (Netflix doesn't). How does Netflix counter this attack? In two ways (i) exclusive original "must have" programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (although you can bet Apple will get into that game as well - perhaps even buy a studio?), and (ii) a significant depth of content that Apple will not have ... at least for a long time. Advantage Apple.
(2) Distribution -- Apple's ecosystem is closed. Netflix's is open. That means that Apple's OTT video service will be bundled only into Apple products, whereas Netflix comes with virtually everyone else (including Apple TV -- although you can bet that Apple's Netflix-Killer will be front and center and free (at least for a while) on Apple TV's when it launches). So, Netflix's sheer reach significantly outdistances Apple. Oh yes, and Netflix already has built a massive customer base -- and is growing fast internationally. Advantage Netflix.
(3) User Experience -- Virtually everyone on the planet has Netflix. It's part of our Zeitgeist and its UI is practically burned into our brains. So, it is easy to use. But, Apple's hallmark is user experience -- a UI/UX that is both "pretty" (yes, that matters) and intuitive/easy. And -- and this is a critical "and" -- Apple can do (and does) what Netflix and others can't. It seamlessly integrates software/services with its hardware (including Apple TV). That means that Apple's new OTT video service will be front and center and easier to use. Advantage Apple.
(4) Price -- Netflix charges $8.99 monthly for new users, whereas Apple's "killer" service inevitably will cost significantly more. ESPN alone costs cable/satellite operators about $6 monthly per sub. Advantage Netflix.
So, we have a draw here, right?
Well, here's the ultimate rub. The companies' fundamentally divergent business models.
Neflix is a pure-play video service. The company monetizes its service only. That is its business model -- and that means that it must be profitable based on subscription revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to effectively mine its treasure trove of customer data).
Apple's business model is fundamentally different. For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins. You see, Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's. It is hardware pure and simple. Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?). That means that Apple's new video service is essentially a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales. That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs in order to keep its subscription pricing down.
How does Netflix match that?
Minggu, 15 Februari 2015
Apple Buys Tesla? Signs Point to "YES" (... & How Musk Saved My Life ...)
Apple leaks a story that it's developing an electric iCar. Tesla's stock drops.
Coincidence? I think not.
Rather, I think this news supports the notion that Apple is, in fact, serious about the automotive industry and ultimately will buy Tesla (something I first predicted -- and laid out the rationale -- nearly two years ago on June 6, 2013). And, if that's true, why not inject fear and doubt about Tesla in the market to better position itself for an ultimate acquisition. After all, why build (a massively long and winding road as Forbes points out) when you can buy -- especially when Apple and Tesla share (shared) similar DNA and charismatic leaders. Elon Musk is the Steve Jobs of our day ... taken to the Nth degree. The Street would love it if Apple anointed Musk as its CEO (I laid this out recently in a separate blog post). And rolling iPads are a logical "next frontier" for Apple.
I originally made my prediction when I bought my Tesla Model S -- well before subsequent rumors swirled months later about Apple and Tesla top execs met to discuss something massively strategic.
I am long on Tesla (own stock in the company as well as drive its car) -- and surmise that Apple is too. Here's why.
(1) It's a great car. Plain and simple. It is revolutionary. I still feel this way after driving the Model S for nearly 2 years and now over 35,000 miles. My weekly commute is from San Diego to LA and back. My Tesla continues to bring a smile on my face as I "zip" (well, that's a bit overstated) through the car pool lane with my "all electric" stickers;
(2) I am not alone in feeling this way. I know several people who own Teslas. ALL feel this way. Once a Tesla owner, always a Tesla owner. That's the kind of customer loyalty you simply don't see elsewhere. That bodes well for the company long-term. (Sounds a bit like how Apple customers feel about its products, no?).
(3) My Model S saved my life last week. Am not kidding. Back to that car pool lane I discuss above -- which, in SoCal -- is double yellow-line laden, signifying to other lanes that merging into it at those points is illegal. For obvious reasons. Unexpected movements as all cars go at the normal "flow" (75-80 mph) can (and frequently do) lead to tragic results. That was the scenario last week -- when out of the corner of my eye I see a car TWO lanes over dangerously swerve between two high speed vehicles -- and then swerve directly into my lane (obviously didn't see me at those speeds). In an instant -- literally the shortest instant -- I faced this: (i) car swerves directly toward me across the double yellow line; (ii) with a concrete dividing barrier with just inches of clearance to my left (i.e., I am sandwiched); (iii) at high speed. Absolutely no time to think. Couldn't. Didn't. Pure instinct. I slammed on the breaks (full slam at those speeds!). I turn the wheel slightly to the left (and then back straight again in an instant). Miraculously avoiding the inevitable sideswipe by no more than inches. Miraculously screeching completely straight to an immediate and massive drop of speed. And, miraculously having no car immediately behind -- rear-ending/slamming me -- ______ me (you fill in the blank of possibilities here). Any single one of those factors off by just a hair, and the results at those speeds and with that traffic would have been tragic. No doubt in my mind about that. And any single flaw in the car's performance could (I think would) have led to disastrous results. A very fine thread indeed ...
Faced with this scenario -- and all those factors -- my Model S performed. Flawlessly. Now THAT's a product (if you can call it that)!
I am long on Tesla.
Think Apple is too. And Tesla's only imaginable home is within Apple's core.
Coincidence? I think not.
Rather, I think this news supports the notion that Apple is, in fact, serious about the automotive industry and ultimately will buy Tesla (something I first predicted -- and laid out the rationale -- nearly two years ago on June 6, 2013). And, if that's true, why not inject fear and doubt about Tesla in the market to better position itself for an ultimate acquisition. After all, why build (a massively long and winding road as Forbes points out) when you can buy -- especially when Apple and Tesla share (shared) similar DNA and charismatic leaders. Elon Musk is the Steve Jobs of our day ... taken to the Nth degree. The Street would love it if Apple anointed Musk as its CEO (I laid this out recently in a separate blog post). And rolling iPads are a logical "next frontier" for Apple.
I originally made my prediction when I bought my Tesla Model S -- well before subsequent rumors swirled months later about Apple and Tesla top execs met to discuss something massively strategic.
I am long on Tesla (own stock in the company as well as drive its car) -- and surmise that Apple is too. Here's why.
(1) It's a great car. Plain and simple. It is revolutionary. I still feel this way after driving the Model S for nearly 2 years and now over 35,000 miles. My weekly commute is from San Diego to LA and back. My Tesla continues to bring a smile on my face as I "zip" (well, that's a bit overstated) through the car pool lane with my "all electric" stickers;
(2) I am not alone in feeling this way. I know several people who own Teslas. ALL feel this way. Once a Tesla owner, always a Tesla owner. That's the kind of customer loyalty you simply don't see elsewhere. That bodes well for the company long-term. (Sounds a bit like how Apple customers feel about its products, no?).
(3) My Model S saved my life last week. Am not kidding. Back to that car pool lane I discuss above -- which, in SoCal -- is double yellow-line laden, signifying to other lanes that merging into it at those points is illegal. For obvious reasons. Unexpected movements as all cars go at the normal "flow" (75-80 mph) can (and frequently do) lead to tragic results. That was the scenario last week -- when out of the corner of my eye I see a car TWO lanes over dangerously swerve between two high speed vehicles -- and then swerve directly into my lane (obviously didn't see me at those speeds). In an instant -- literally the shortest instant -- I faced this: (i) car swerves directly toward me across the double yellow line; (ii) with a concrete dividing barrier with just inches of clearance to my left (i.e., I am sandwiched); (iii) at high speed. Absolutely no time to think. Couldn't. Didn't. Pure instinct. I slammed on the breaks (full slam at those speeds!). I turn the wheel slightly to the left (and then back straight again in an instant). Miraculously avoiding the inevitable sideswipe by no more than inches. Miraculously screeching completely straight to an immediate and massive drop of speed. And, miraculously having no car immediately behind -- rear-ending/slamming me -- ______ me (you fill in the blank of possibilities here). Any single one of those factors off by just a hair, and the results at those speeds and with that traffic would have been tragic. No doubt in my mind about that. And any single flaw in the car's performance could (I think would) have led to disastrous results. A very fine thread indeed ...
Faced with this scenario -- and all those factors -- my Model S performed. Flawlessly. Now THAT's a product (if you can call it that)!
I am long on Tesla.
Think Apple is too. And Tesla's only imaginable home is within Apple's core.
Kamis, 12 Februari 2015
YouTube V. Facebook, Amazon, Apple - Clash of the Video Titans (& The Role of DNA)
It's a wrap for the Digital Entertainment World (DEW) Expo in LA -- a conference in its second year that celebrates precisely what is happening now in the media & entertainment business -- which is what most call "disruption." But, I call it "transformation" -- a positive (but authentic, real) "take" on the massive new opportunities to reach, build, and effectively engage with, an audience in our increasingly multi-platform world ... well, at least for those who accept new realities and have the resolve to act.
Yesterday, I moderated an "all about MCNs" panel with nothing but A-list executive talent. But, MCNs are just one part of the overall digital-first video ecosystem that is at the center of the fundamental media and entertainment transformation in which we find ourselves -- an ecosystem that was birthed by YouTube, which remains the "mother of all video platforms."
Now, for the first time, even mother YouTube faces what seemed to be almost unthinkable just one year ago -- i.e., real formidable challengers. THESE are the conversations that took place at DEW. On the stages ... and, even more importantly in the bars of the Hyatt Hotel where liquor flowed and candid discussions followed.
YouTube "challengers" are everywhere. And many loudly preach (more like screech) their "alternative platform" gospel to every would-be believer.
Who are these contenders?
Well, you have your primarily short-form video-focused MCNs about which I write regularly. Leaders include broad-based Maker Studios (now owned by Disney), Fullscreen (now owned by Otter Media, the JV of AT&T and The Chernin Group) and Collective Digital Studio; fashion/beauty young female-focused StyleHaul (now essentially owned by Euro-based media company RTL Group); young male gamer-focused Machinima; foodie-focused Tastemade; sports-focused Whistle Sports; Latino-focused Mitu; urban-focused All Def Digital (with the perfect acronym ADD for our short "bite-sized" vid world); and dance-focused DanceOn. All of these now actively look to find their audiences on as many "off YouTube" platforms as possible.
Next you have young OTT/MCN upstarts like high-profile Vessel which punches above its weight and hopes to open subscription-based distribution exclusivity windows while others (Netflix) try to slam them shut.
You also have social sharing sites like Twitter and increasingly Snapchat. Snapchat, a media company? Really? Just discover "Discover." And talk to the CEOs from the leading MCNs. Snapchat matters. A lot.
You now even have your major brands that advertise on all of these platforms. Lifestyle brands Red Bull and GoPro aim to be your first-choice destination for a certain, specific action/adventure segment of short-form video content that historically has found its home on YouTube.
Then, you have your established major OTTs like Netflix and Hulu who -- at least up to this point -- focus instead almost exclusively on longer-form motion picture and television content. That will change over time. It is inevitable. Each must play more effectively in the mobile space -- and that means short-form video content. Just trust me on this one.
You also have your major carriers like AT&T (via its Otter Media partnership with The Chernin Group) and Verizon (via the OnCue OTT platform that it acquired from Intel) getting into the OTT game with their own major plays.
And, of course, you have your more "traditional" cable/satellite companies entering the fray (case in point, Dish Networks' surprisingly heavily-discussed new Sling TV service which is getting real "buzz" here at DEW for what it represents).
But, YouTube's biggest challenger right now in the minds of those at DEW clearly is Facebook. The votes are unanimous there. Less obvious -- but real, very real -- are the other two 800 pound gorillas known as Amazon and Apple.
When considering the media ambitions of all 4 behemoths -- YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Apple -- consider this. While each of their ultimate video ambitions are roughly the same (essentially to "own it all" -- both short form and long form video), their individual core DNA is not. And, that unique individualized DNA colors each company's particular video offering and opportunity, as well as the video opportunity for both brands and those who buy from them (in other words, us).
To understand what I mean in this DNA discussion of genetics, first, let's recap.
YouTube is a video destination first and foremost. It was built for our viewing pleasure. Plain and simple. Yes, we can (and do) share videos. But, we primarily come here to find something of interest and watch. Passively. And, YouTube makes money from ads served against that watching.
Facebook -- the video challenger on everyone's lips at DEW -- has fundamentally different DNA. Facebook is all about sharing. We go to Facebook to share pieces of our lives and pick up the breadcrumbs of others. Yes, we can (and do) watch videos. But, we primarily come here (at least up to this point) to share. Actively. And, so while Facebook, like YouTube, makes money primarily from serving ads, the path to (and mindset of) engagement with those ads is very different. And, the numbers related to engagement bear this out. Check out this excellent analysis from Advertising Age to take a look behind the curtain.
How about Amazon? NOT a YouTube competitor, you say? Don't be fooled. Amazon wants to own it all. Yes, Amazon Prime is front and center with its premium long-form movies and television. But, take a closer look. That's right, there it is -- something called "Amazon Shorts" that looks a lot like YouTube. So, now we increasingly watch videos on Amazon. But, let's face it, we still primarily come to shop, because Amazon's core DNA is commerce. And, Amazon's differentiated genetics put it in a unique position to effectively monetize videos through commerce. Videos serve as a marketing spend -- digital billboards that drive us into its virtual store. Intriguing. Very.
And then there's Apple .... don't forget this $700 billion juggernaut, of course, because although it has laid largely dormant on the video side (causing all of us to occasionally scratch our heads), let's not forget that little thing called iTunes. And, reports just recently surfaced, once again, that Apple hopes to launch its own OTT streaming service to become our video platform of choice. Speculation abounds that Apple's OTT play may be akin to DISH's stripped-down programming bundle approach known as Sling TV.
But, here's my guess. Apple will not launch its OTT service unless and until its OTT package includes ESPN -- THE critical pay TV ingredient. And, let's not forget that small little detail that Apple has a long and uniquely cozy relationship with ESPN's owner (Disney) (Jobs/Pixar, anyone?). If Apple were able to score ESPN (just like only iTunes scored The Beatles), that move alone would be a game-changer.
Why would Apple play in the "alternative YouTube" world? Sure, incremental revenues are nice. But, that's not it. Instead, Apple's DNA reflexively drives its actions -- and Apple's core DNA is not like any of the others. It is hardware pure and simple (Samsung shares that same DNA via Milk Video). Apple makes its money by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, iWatches and the inevitable iTV (and perhaps even ultimately the iTesla?). We ride the video Trojan Horse into our neighborhood Apple Stores (in the same way Apple bought Beats Music to build it's music streaming Trojan Horse).
So many video players, and oh so little time.
YouTube. What to do, what to do? Well, for now, YouTube remains the "must be there" platform for creators. We also are still very, very early in the overall digital video game. So, while YouTube's ultimate market share will be chipped away, that reality will be countered by significantly (massively) more volume. And, just like long-form video platforms like Amazon and Netflix increasingly play on YouTube's short-form turf, YouTube will play on their home courts and seek to steal share from the in the long-form video space.
After all, many of these players' ultimate vision is to own it all -- be your single destination for all your video needs -- short-form, long-form, and everything in between.
Yesterday, I moderated an "all about MCNs" panel with nothing but A-list executive talent. But, MCNs are just one part of the overall digital-first video ecosystem that is at the center of the fundamental media and entertainment transformation in which we find ourselves -- an ecosystem that was birthed by YouTube, which remains the "mother of all video platforms."
Now, for the first time, even mother YouTube faces what seemed to be almost unthinkable just one year ago -- i.e., real formidable challengers. THESE are the conversations that took place at DEW. On the stages ... and, even more importantly in the bars of the Hyatt Hotel where liquor flowed and candid discussions followed.
YouTube "challengers" are everywhere. And many loudly preach (more like screech) their "alternative platform" gospel to every would-be believer.
Who are these contenders?
Well, you have your primarily short-form video-focused MCNs about which I write regularly. Leaders include broad-based Maker Studios (now owned by Disney), Fullscreen (now owned by Otter Media, the JV of AT&T and The Chernin Group) and Collective Digital Studio; fashion/beauty young female-focused StyleHaul (now essentially owned by Euro-based media company RTL Group); young male gamer-focused Machinima; foodie-focused Tastemade; sports-focused Whistle Sports; Latino-focused Mitu; urban-focused All Def Digital (with the perfect acronym ADD for our short "bite-sized" vid world); and dance-focused DanceOn. All of these now actively look to find their audiences on as many "off YouTube" platforms as possible.
Next you have young OTT/MCN upstarts like high-profile Vessel which punches above its weight and hopes to open subscription-based distribution exclusivity windows while others (Netflix) try to slam them shut.
You also have social sharing sites like Twitter and increasingly Snapchat. Snapchat, a media company? Really? Just discover "Discover." And talk to the CEOs from the leading MCNs. Snapchat matters. A lot.
You now even have your major brands that advertise on all of these platforms. Lifestyle brands Red Bull and GoPro aim to be your first-choice destination for a certain, specific action/adventure segment of short-form video content that historically has found its home on YouTube.
Then, you have your established major OTTs like Netflix and Hulu who -- at least up to this point -- focus instead almost exclusively on longer-form motion picture and television content. That will change over time. It is inevitable. Each must play more effectively in the mobile space -- and that means short-form video content. Just trust me on this one.
You also have your major carriers like AT&T (via its Otter Media partnership with The Chernin Group) and Verizon (via the OnCue OTT platform that it acquired from Intel) getting into the OTT game with their own major plays.
And, of course, you have your more "traditional" cable/satellite companies entering the fray (case in point, Dish Networks' surprisingly heavily-discussed new Sling TV service which is getting real "buzz" here at DEW for what it represents).
But, YouTube's biggest challenger right now in the minds of those at DEW clearly is Facebook. The votes are unanimous there. Less obvious -- but real, very real -- are the other two 800 pound gorillas known as Amazon and Apple.
When considering the media ambitions of all 4 behemoths -- YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Apple -- consider this. While each of their ultimate video ambitions are roughly the same (essentially to "own it all" -- both short form and long form video), their individual core DNA is not. And, that unique individualized DNA colors each company's particular video offering and opportunity, as well as the video opportunity for both brands and those who buy from them (in other words, us).
To understand what I mean in this DNA discussion of genetics, first, let's recap.
YouTube is a video destination first and foremost. It was built for our viewing pleasure. Plain and simple. Yes, we can (and do) share videos. But, we primarily come here to find something of interest and watch. Passively. And, YouTube makes money from ads served against that watching.
Facebook -- the video challenger on everyone's lips at DEW -- has fundamentally different DNA. Facebook is all about sharing. We go to Facebook to share pieces of our lives and pick up the breadcrumbs of others. Yes, we can (and do) watch videos. But, we primarily come here (at least up to this point) to share. Actively. And, so while Facebook, like YouTube, makes money primarily from serving ads, the path to (and mindset of) engagement with those ads is very different. And, the numbers related to engagement bear this out. Check out this excellent analysis from Advertising Age to take a look behind the curtain.
How about Amazon? NOT a YouTube competitor, you say? Don't be fooled. Amazon wants to own it all. Yes, Amazon Prime is front and center with its premium long-form movies and television. But, take a closer look. That's right, there it is -- something called "Amazon Shorts" that looks a lot like YouTube. So, now we increasingly watch videos on Amazon. But, let's face it, we still primarily come to shop, because Amazon's core DNA is commerce. And, Amazon's differentiated genetics put it in a unique position to effectively monetize videos through commerce. Videos serve as a marketing spend -- digital billboards that drive us into its virtual store. Intriguing. Very.
And then there's Apple .... don't forget this $700 billion juggernaut, of course, because although it has laid largely dormant on the video side (causing all of us to occasionally scratch our heads), let's not forget that little thing called iTunes. And, reports just recently surfaced, once again, that Apple hopes to launch its own OTT streaming service to become our video platform of choice. Speculation abounds that Apple's OTT play may be akin to DISH's stripped-down programming bundle approach known as Sling TV.
But, here's my guess. Apple will not launch its OTT service unless and until its OTT package includes ESPN -- THE critical pay TV ingredient. And, let's not forget that small little detail that Apple has a long and uniquely cozy relationship with ESPN's owner (Disney) (Jobs/Pixar, anyone?). If Apple were able to score ESPN (just like only iTunes scored The Beatles), that move alone would be a game-changer.
Why would Apple play in the "alternative YouTube" world? Sure, incremental revenues are nice. But, that's not it. Instead, Apple's DNA reflexively drives its actions -- and Apple's core DNA is not like any of the others. It is hardware pure and simple (Samsung shares that same DNA via Milk Video). Apple makes its money by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, iWatches and the inevitable iTV (and perhaps even ultimately the iTesla?). We ride the video Trojan Horse into our neighborhood Apple Stores (in the same way Apple bought Beats Music to build it's music streaming Trojan Horse).
So many video players, and oh so little time.
YouTube. What to do, what to do? Well, for now, YouTube remains the "must be there" platform for creators. We also are still very, very early in the overall digital video game. So, while YouTube's ultimate market share will be chipped away, that reality will be countered by significantly (massively) more volume. And, just like long-form video platforms like Amazon and Netflix increasingly play on YouTube's short-form turf, YouTube will play on their home courts and seek to steal share from the in the long-form video space.
After all, many of these players' ultimate vision is to own it all -- be your single destination for all your video needs -- short-form, long-form, and everything in between.
Selasa, 20 Januari 2015
Tech Giant Buys Hollywood Studio -- Happens In 2015? Here's Why
Yes, THAT may happen in 2015. A tech giant may very well buy its way significantly deeper into the content game this year by acquiring one of the major Hollywood studios.
Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world. That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk). That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage. And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content. I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!
Let's take a look at those business models.
Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies). Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.
Amazon is all about e-commerce. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.
Google is all about advertising. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.
CONTENT is that Trojan Horse. Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables. And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."
For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising. Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself. That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths. Content is essentially a loss-leader. That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.
But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint. In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience. The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract. How they monetize those listeners IS the question.
Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios. The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios. These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV. But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA. That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion. And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable. And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.
And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm. Tech giants who increasingly covet content. And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).
This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).
Which studio? One logical choice could be Warner Bros. Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios. How about Sony? It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.
Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move? Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion. How about Samsung? Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket. Amazon? Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes. It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe. Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it). And then there's Google. Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube. But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.
Think this is a stretch? Not at all. Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off. Yes, THAT is likely in 2015. A tech giant may buy its way into the content game this year by acquiring one of the major Hollywood studios.
Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world. That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk). That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage. And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content. I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!
Let's take a look at those business models.
Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies). Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.
Amazon is all about e-commerce. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.
Google is all about advertising. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.
CONTENT is that Trojan Horse. Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables. And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."
For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising. Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself. That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths. Content is essentially a loss-leader. That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.
But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint. In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience. The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract. How they monetize those listeners IS the question.
Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios. The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios. These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV. But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA. That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion. And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable. And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.
And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm. Tech giants who increasingly covet content. And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).
This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).
Which studio? One logical choice could be Warner Bros. Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios. How about Sony? It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.
Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move? Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion. How about Samsung? Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket. Amazon? Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes. It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe). Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it). And then there's Google. Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube. But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.
Think this is a stretch? Not at all. Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off. Moreover, such a move certainly is not unprecedented. Let's not forget that consumer electronics giant Sony bought its way into the content business 25 years ago when it acquired Columbia Pictures. And, remember, competing CE company Matsushita, not to be undone and in rapid succession, bought MCA/Universal (which it unloaded soon thereafter to Edgar Bronfman and his alcohol dynasty).
Mixed results, for sure. But, these are very different times indeed for the "media plus tech" equation.
The math is right.
The times are right.
Don't be surprised by it.
Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world. That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk). That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage. And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content. I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!
Let's take a look at those business models.
Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies). Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.
Amazon is all about e-commerce. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.
Google is all about advertising. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.
CONTENT is that Trojan Horse. Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables. And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."
For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising. Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself. That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths. Content is essentially a loss-leader. That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.
But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint. In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience. The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract. How they monetize those listeners IS the question.
Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios. The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios. These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV. But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA. That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion. And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable. And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.
And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm. Tech giants who increasingly covet content. And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).
This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).
Which studio? One logical choice could be Warner Bros. Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios. How about Sony? It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.
Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move? Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion. How about Samsung? Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket. Amazon? Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes. It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe. Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it). And then there's Google. Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube. But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.
Think this is a stretch? Not at all. Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off. Yes, THAT is likely in 2015. A tech giant may buy its way into the content game this year by acquiring one of the major Hollywood studios.
Content is increasingly "king" in our multi-platform, smartphone-driven, millennial-focused world. That small screen -- and the digital-first eco-system built on top of it -- changes everything (I recently wrote about this for TechCrunch, Variety and VideoInk). That's where consumers (especially the young eyeballs coveted by marketers) engage. And, that small screen and our increasingly digital-first world absolutely are critical to tech giants like Apple, Samsung, Amazon, and Google, each of which has a fundamentally different core business model that ultimately is driven by content. I'll repeat ... that is driven by content!
Let's take a look at those business models.
Apple and Samsung are all about hardware sales (iPads, iPhones, Galaxies). Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive those sales.
Amazon is all about e-commerce. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to drive more and more consumers into its virtual store to buy goods.
Google is all about advertising. Everything else is a Trojan Horse to maximize eyeballs and ad sales.
CONTENT is that Trojan Horse. Apple iTunes, Samsung Milk Music and Milk Video, Amazon Prime, and YouTube are the names of those individual stables. And, the goal of each service is to have the deepest and best performing stable of horses -- and increasingly unique ones (i.e., exclusive/original programming) -- so that consumers jump on and ride their services instead of the "other guys'."
For these tech behemoths, content (movies, television) essentially functions as pure advertising. Content is the means to an end, and ROI is not measured by the content service itself. That's why stand-alone highly challenging economics that apply to pure-play services like Spotify, Pandora and Netflix don't apply to these tech behemoths. Content is essentially a loss-leader. That content is THE most critical form of advertising to fuel their underlying business model.
But, merely because this is the reality (i.e., that content is viewed as a marketing spend) isn't necessarily a bad thing from a creative (or consumer) standpoint. In fact, the fundamental goal of all story-telling -- including in this "Trojan Horse"/advertising scenario -- is to captivate an audience. The better the story-teller, the more listeners they will attract. How they monetize those listeners IS the question.
Let's take a look at the flip-side of this -- i.e., the studios. The smartphone's small screen is having major impact on the studios. These studios have played effectively for years in the big/bigger screen worlds of theatrical and TV. But, small screen, digital-first, millennial-focused video content is not in their DNA. That's why Disney bought Maker Studios for up to a near-$1 billion. And, this confusing new multi-platform smartphone driven world order makes "traditional" major studios (and the moguls who run them) feel vulnerable. And, that vulnerability makes them more open to possibilities.
And, that leads to the perfect M&A storm. Tech giants who increasingly covet content. And, content-creators who increasingly scratch their heads about their next act (but are experts in story-telling and creating bigger screen premium content).
This is simple math that leads to one logical conclusion -- a tech giant could very well buy one of these major studios this year (this was #5 of my 8 predictions in my TechCrunch guest article).
Which studio? One logical choice could be Warner Bros. Remember, Rupert Murdoch made a big play to swallow Warner Bros. up last year -- an attempt that failed, but perhaps exposing a crack in the veneer of this and other major studios. How about Sony? It certainly has had its well-publicized challenges.
Which of these tech giants is most likely to make that bold move? Apple certainly has signaled its willingness to move in that direction, buying Beats on the music side for $3 billion. How about Samsung? Its newly-launched Milk Video service needs to differentiate -- and studio content could be the ticket. Amazon? Bezos just scored big wins as a premium TV-like content creator at the Golden Globes. It has also quietly created its own YouTube alternative universe). Movies are the natural "next act" (in fact, Amazon just yesterday announced a major theatrical motion picture slate strategy and "traditional" media exec to run it). And then there's Google. Yes, you would think that it needs to be Swiss (neutral) with the "mother of all video distribution platforms" that is YouTube. But, don't forget that Google has wanted to play hard in the premium video content development game for some time -- and is widely reported to be undertaking bold new major content development initiatives.
Think this is a stretch? Not at all. Each of these tech giants certainly has the cash to pull it off. Moreover, such a move certainly is not unprecedented. Let's not forget that consumer electronics giant Sony bought its way into the content business 25 years ago when it acquired Columbia Pictures. And, remember, competing CE company Matsushita, not to be undone and in rapid succession, bought MCA/Universal (which it unloaded soon thereafter to Edgar Bronfman and his alcohol dynasty).
Mixed results, for sure. But, these are very different times indeed for the "media plus tech" equation.
The math is right.
The times are right.
Don't be surprised by it.
Senin, 29 Desember 2014
My Latest Guest Article for Variety -- The 3 Digital Media Mega-Deals That Defined the Year
Here is an excerpt from my latest guest article for Variety titled, “The 3 Digital Media Mega-Deals That Defined the Year” -- click this link to read the full article in Variety.
2014 proved to be a transformational year for content-driven digital media and tech investment. What started as a year in which SoCal investors longed for credibility and redemption for their l ong-held faith in the age-old adage “content is king” (in an increasingly tech-driven world), ended as a year of affirmation via a parade of multi-billion dollar exits. Disney unlocked this door first on the video side of the house with its $500-$950 million purchase of leading multi-channel network (MCN) Maker Studios. But, then others rushed the stage. Facebook bought virtual-reality (V/R) company Oculus Rift – and its initial gaming applications -- for $2 billion; and Apple Beat(s) the drum of music for $3 billion. These three deals alone totaled nearly $6 billion and defined a millennial-driven year in digital media. Read the rest by clicking here.
2014 proved to be a transformational year for content-driven digital media and tech investment. What started as a year in which SoCal investors longed for credibility and redemption for their l
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)













