What was Steve Jobs's vision for the future of TV?
Dealing with content owners
In fact, serious sacrifices to content owners like MTV and distributors such as Comcast might water down the vision considerably.
Putting together the necessary business deals and licensing agreements would be a very, very tough sell. For music, Jobs was able to make favorable licensing deals with record labels and publishers because piracy was already rampant, and the music industry was suffering.
But the TV industry is different. It has learned from the music industry's experience with the Internet, and it has gone to great lengths to control where and how video content becomes available. So the TV industry isn't as likely to cede that control to Apple's digital distribution system.
Sure enough, Apple has lots of TV programming for sale—it’s actually the far-and-away market leader in online episodic sales—but the availability is spotty. Some content is newly aired (mostly network TV), and some material is old stuff that hits when the DVD comes out (anything on HBO).
Many content providers don’t mind letting Apple sell individual episodes—$3 for an episode of Glee isn’t bad—but purchasing shows separately isn't the same experience as plopping down on the couch to watch a few sitcoms. Heck, it isn't even like watching Netflix’s Instant streaming service. Downloading shows one at a time and paying for them piecemeal is far from the seamless, integrated solution Jobs was envisioning.
To move toward Jobs's vision, Apple will have to convince networks and cable operators to give it access to real-time, present-day programming. That won’t be easy—and it may not be possible.
Kevin Boyland, a media industry analyst with IBISWorld, says that such deals with cable companies and content providers are the Achilles’ heel of the strategy. “Most people think a revamped Apple TV would be some sort of device with both live content and streaming from your Mac," he notes. "But cable providers want to control the access and user interface for that content, and companies like Comcast are actively and aggressively investing money in upgrading and rolling out their own user interfaces, so there’s a lot of reluctance for them to hand over control to Apple.”
In other words, the cable companies hate Apple, mainly because they saw what it did to the music industry.
What Apple could more easily get is a licensing deal with cable providers that lets existing customers access their cable service through Apple’s box. “That wouldn’t disrupt anything,” says Boyland. Essentially, that kind of strategy would amount to putting a Comcast app on your iPad, or doing a similar kind of deal to the one that cable outfits struck with NBC to stream the Olympics online.
Even if the idea did pan out, Apple would have to make a deal with every regional cable company to serve the whole country. It’s natural to ask next: Why not cut the cable companies out of the equation and deal directly with the content creators and distributors themselves? The reality today is that you can’t, because in many cases, the cable companies own the content creators—NBC and Universal, for instance, are part of Comcast, and Time Warner owns HBO. The tight integration of content with cable, says Boyland, now makes a successful reinvention of Apple TV “highly improbable.”
Dan Cryan, another TV-focused analyst with IHS, is more bullish on Apple’s prospects, noting, like Boyland, that the company has two choices: Go with an app-store model like the one described above, or make deals directly with content or cable companies to rebroadcast everything.
But in Cryan’s mind, an even larger challenge is how to take Apple TV international. The company has been increasingly focused on global launches, but the highly regional nature of television makes this task much more difficult than, say, launching an iPad in a dozen countries. “How do you sell U.S. TV into Europe? Into China?” he asks.
Regardless, Cryan believes Apple is up to the challenge. “I think this will come together in the future,” he says with confidence.
The problem with TVs
Even if Apple does figure out a way to get the content it needs—either through direct deals or an app strategy—then what? What kind of hardware might Apple launch to replace the $99 hockey puck (Apple TV) it’s selling now?
As noted, many people have speculated that Apple might launch its own Apple-branded television set with these services built in. Something like an iMac, sans computer.
That may happen, but it doesn’t quite mesh with Apple’s strategies to date. Says Boyland: “The typical Apple product life span is about two years. The typical TV has a life span of seven to eight years. Launching a TV just wouldn’t fit well with their market and upgrade approach.” The conventional wisdom seems to hold that Apple may make a go of it anyway. The potential rewards from taking over the home electronics aisles are just too great.
None of Apple’s future partners or competitors will talk about any of this. Representatives for Netflix, TiVo, Microsoft Xbox, and YouTube all politely declined to speak about what Apple’s vision for television might be. A Netflix spokesperson put their reason for declining comment rather eloquently, saying, “We can’t speak on behalf of Steve.”
Isaacson, Jobs’s biographer, also declined to elaborate on what Jobs might have been thinking. His publicist sent a statement reading: “Out of respect for Apple, [Isaacson] made a decision not to put in all of Steve Jobs's discussions with him about future products such as TV, and he doesn't want to add now to what he says in the book.”