As the year comes to a close, many tech sites are speculating on what 2012 will bring. Of course, Apple is always a big subject of debate, what with Steve Jobs having passed on.
There was one piece in particular that I read (this one from Ryan Lawler at GigaOM) that made the case that Apple would do well to just focus on the user experience of any future ATV device and not attempt to create a new model (e.g. disrupt) the existing television industry.
I totally disagree with this take.
Now, I’m not saying that Apple shouldn’t stress user experience. Of course bringing simplicity and dare I even say, beauty, to the television viewing experience is key. But this is an area that Apple really has already focused on. The interface for ATV is pretty streamlined already.
No, what I think Apple needs to do is exactly what Lawler says they shouldn’t attempt, which is disruption.
If Apple is smart, it won’t set out to disrupt the programming industry by creating a la carte packages of licensed content. Think of it as “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Apple is not going to be able to disrupt the TV industry, so it might as well give the TV industry the tools it needs to improve their offerings for consumers.
This is exactly what Apple did in their music and phone business. People said that they couldn’t offer a la cart packages in music because labels and artists wouldn’t go for their albums being broken up into pieces. People also said Apple could never create a phone that by and large bypassed carrier control.
They did both and consumers are better served as a result of it.
You can already purchase shows on iTunes a la carte and watch those shows on your ATV, just like music or apps. This isn’t a brave new world, it is the current world that we live in.
Here is what Apple should do.
First, ignore people who say they can’t reform the television industry. This is the company of “Think Different” which brought us the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. I’d like to give them a little credibility in disrupting industries.
Second, they absolutely should build a system that is based on a la carte selection of content choices. You mean to tell me HBO or Showtime or FX won’t go for offering up their most popular shows for a premium price and take more of the profit? Personally, I’d pay $50 or more for a season of Dexter just by itself if I could get it the day it airs, in full HD, with supplemental content throughout the week (maybe teasers, behind the scenes content, interviews, etc). To me, paying for shows I want is worth it – paying for a network of content in which I only care about 10% of said content, isn’t.
This is kind of the problem with Netflix isn’t it? The reason I cancelled Netflix wasn’t due to their stripping off of their dvd business, or their price changes. It was because I was paying a monthly bill for a whole lot of old content that for the most part I didn’t care about. I want to pay for content I want, not that I don’t want. Netflix has like 5% of what I want, and 95% filler. I am also noticing the same problem with Spotify to be honest and that makes me sad.
I am all for Apple providing tools for content producers as well. Giving them tools to create cross device experience is something Lawler advocates for and I agree. It would be awesome to be able to watch Dexter starting on my television in the living room, conclude while laying in bed on the iPad and be able to get updates on the show (be it behinds the scenes, interviews, trivia, games) via my phone.
But thats the kind of thing that we can, for the most part, already do with an ATV or a media center (I use Plex and this is all possible). What I really hope to see from Apple is a total disruption with not so much how a television itself functions, but how cable networks function. I want to pay for what I want to consume, not pay for a buffet filled with broccoli and cauliflower (e.g. stuff I don’t eat)
