At least not in the U.S.

Time Warner keeps getting asked about this, and they keep saying the same thing. Even though lots of you say you’d love to buy HBO but don’t want to get a pay-TV subscription, and it’s the future, and it’s inevitable, and Time Warner is stupid for not seeing it your way.

The only wrinkle in the call-and-response came last month, when HBO head Richard Plepler floated the notion of paying for HBO as a broadband-only service — but which would be sold by the broadband guys, who are also the pay-TV guys.

That would be an interesting incremental move, but even that’s not going to happen anytime soon. As soon as Plepler’s comments hit the press, Time Warner officials were walking it back in private.

Today, CEO Jeff Bewkes did the same thing in public, while trying to suggest that Plepler didn’t really mean what he said, anyway. Yes, he told analysts on an earnings call, HBO does sell a broadband-only service in Scandinavia. But the U.S. isn’t Sweden:

HBO’s got 40 million HBO/cinemax subs here. We are vigorously offering HBO Go through all our distributors. If you then go and say, “well should we add it as a broadband-only service?”, which we could do through facilities-based providers, or you could do it through non-facilities based providers, which I think was the discussion Richard was having — we have the rights to do it.

And we would do it if we thought it was in our economic best interest. At this point we don’t think it makes sense. We don’t think the target market is sufficiently large to be attractive at this point. So what we’re doing, and we think this is working pretty well — we’re working with the [pay TV operators] to increase the penetration of HBO Go in a mutually benefical way.

We’re always going to keep evaluating it, depending on the country. And i think that was what Richard was talking about. And I think he’s right to say it that way.

So to sum up: If you think we’re going to do anything to upset the TV Industrial Complex that is now the core of our business, you’re nuts. We need the cable guys to sell our stuff, and we’re not going to bail on that until we have to.

I don’t know what Plepler, a former PR guy who is as savvy as they come, was trying to accomplish by trying to suggest otherwise. Some people I talked to argued that he was trying to send a message to the cable guys about a different discussion, but I can’t really figure that one out, either.

I do know, though, that the cable guys weren’t happy to hear his comments. One top cable executive told me that he was on the phone with Time Warner shortly after Plepler made his comments, to express his great displeasure at the idea.

Which is precisely why it’s not happening anytime soon.

A lot to say: The Netflix CEO has written an 11-page essay that lays out his vision for the future of streaming video.

If you’re looking for news, you won’t find much here — nearly everything in the document, published on Netflix’s investor website, is a repeat of things Hastings has said or written in recent years.

But if you’re at all interested in the way Hastings thinks things are going to play out in the battle for video eyeballs, and why he thinks Netflix will win many millions of them, it’s well worth a read.

I’ve embedded the document below so you can scan it at your leisure. If you’re in a hurry, some bullet points:

• The one new nugget here is a Hastings prediction, held by many other people, that we’re moving to a world where “apps replace channels.” Hastings mentions apps nearly 3 dozen times in his essay, and makes it clear that he sees Netflix first and foremost as an app provider.
• Hastings figures that lots of other video services will figure the same thing out. And he goes out of his way to mention others that are already there or close to it, citing ESPN, HBO and the BBC.
• But those who don’t get it are screwed, he says: “Existing networks, such as ESPN and HBO, that offer amazing apps will get more viewing than in the past, and be more valuable. Existing networks that fail to develop first-class apps will lose viewing and revenue.”
• In the past, Netflix has tacked back and forth on whether it is competing head to head with HBO. Now Hastings is back in “we’re coming for you” mode: “The network that we think likely to be our biggest long-term competitor-for-content is HBO … They have global reach and strengthening technology capacity.”
• But while Netflix now has as many U.S. subscribers as HBO — and while Hastings thinks he can eventually double or triple his current 30 million — he figures it will take him a while to truly compete with HBO. “While we are passing HBO in domestic members in 2013, it will be several years before we are peers with them in terms of Original programming, Emmy awards, and international members. It wouldn’t be surprising to us if HBO does their best work and achieves their highest growth
  over the next decade, spurred on by the Netflix competition and the Internet TV opportunity.”
• But Hastings also reiterates his argument that there’s room for lots of streaming video services, just like there are lots of cable channels today. Translation: Don’t worry, Jeff Bewkes: Just because we’re coming for you doesn’t mean we’ll crush you. Also, please keep selling us Time Warner’s content! Thanks!
• Hastings also continues to offer olive branches to the entrenched cable guys, especially those that also sell broadband: “At times we have worried about the strategic motivations of ISPs that are also MVPDs, but the absence of cord-cutting has mitigated this concern. … Internet video services like Netflix, MLB.tv, iTunes and YouTube are not currently a material strategic problem for companies that are both an ISP and an MVPD.” Translation: Hey Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon! It would be pretty cool if we figured out a way for you guys to bundle us along with your other video services! Let’s (continue to) talk!

Lots more below. Well worth your time.

Netflix Ir Letter

As far as the bad news … we’ll get to that. But let’s stay upbeat for a minute, and I’ll try to generate more optimism for you.

Start with some charts, via Google Finance.

Here’s what happened to AOL stock after the company split off from Time Warner, just like you’re set to do:

And here’s what happened to Time Warner Cable shares when that company did the same thing:

And for good measure, let’s mash them together:

So, on the whole, not too terrible. Two companies that Jeff Bewkes didn’t want weighing down his cable and movie business, and they’ve done okay once he cut them loose. AOL shares are up 62 percent since the split.** Time Warner Cable is down 21 percent, but shareholders have gotten another $6.41 per share in dividends, so things are a bit better than they look here.

Let’s continue to stay upbeat, and channel the talking points you’re likely to hear in months leading up to the split:

• Hey, just because this is Plan B for Jeff Bewkes doesn’t mean he doesn’t want this to succeed. Time Warner, after all, will end up owning a chunk of the spun-off company, so it has a vested interest in this thing working.
• And, seriously, this could be good for Time Inc.! After all, in the last few years the thing has just been in stasis/shrinking mode, and no one cared. Now they’ll have to care, and maybe the newco will go do some serious re-orging and perhaps some investing, too. After all, it’s good enough for News Corp.!

And all of that is potentially true. Or at least truthy. Or something.

Alas:

• Jeff Bewkes doesn’t care about Time Inc., and investors don’t either — they’ve wanted him to dump it forever. If they haven’t priced the spinoff into the share price already, they will do so immediately, and then that will be that.
• It’s hard to imagine any scenario where Time Inc. is able to navigate the print-to-digital shift effectively. But it certainly won’t get its best odds as a public company made to answer to the Street’s quarterly demands. And even if, say, a deep-pocketed and semi-benevolent benefactor materialized to buy the thing, Bewkes wouldn’t sell, because of the tax hit that would generate (the spinoff will be tax-free for shareholders).
• For better and worse, the News Corp. spin (which is set to include this website) is going to be steered by Rupert Murdoch, a man with a lot of money invested in the company’s perfomance, and even more ego tied up in it. Time Inc. will be run by … someone, and they’ll get a nice paycheck and some options for their effort, but no one expects them to work a miracle here.
• And that’s what Time Inc,. stripped of Time Warner’s corporate shield, will need to turn around. It has the classic analog/digital channel conflict, where the latter is the only way out, but the former generates all the cash. And that’s hard enough to deal with at the most nimble and most flexible companies. This one, shoved out of the nest and into the market without any kind of cushion, seems set up to fail. I hope I’m wrong.

*Des Moines is nice enough, by the way. But the Meredith/Time Inc. culture clash stories you heard were very true.
** True, AOL has fired a lot of people since it went its own way. But that’s going to happen at Time Inc., no matter what. And, yes, the stock’s rise has a lot to do with a $1 billion patent sale, but let’s stay positive!

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/mikeledray)

TV image copyright antpkr

It’s finally happening. The Internet is taking over TV. It’s just happening differently than many of us imagined. There are two major transformations under way:

• The Rise of the Internet Distributors. Led by Netflix, the group of new distributors includes Amazon and Microsoft now, but maybe Apple and Google later. They are largely distributing traditional TV shows in a nontraditional way. All the content is delivered over IP, and usually as part of a paid subscription or per-episode EST (electronic sell-through). Important to note that all of this content contains no advertising and is available entirely on demand. This content falls into the “non-substitutional” content bucket. To watch it, you don’t need to be a cable TV subscriber.
• The Rise of Alternative Content Producers. Thanks to YouTube’s Channel strategy and investment in hundreds of content providers, new producers of content are emerging and offering nontraditional programming, usually in shorter form. This content is marked by dramatically different production economics than traditional TV content, taking advantage of an expanded labor pool and low-cost cameras and computer editing. This alternative content is chipping away at long- and mid-tail viewership on traditional networks (the “filler” and “nice-to-see” buckets).

Both of these transformations are successful to date, and will only become more so. Rich Greenfield has a nice summary of why the TV industry suddenly loves Netflix. (Disclosure: I’ve been a NFLX shareholder for some time.) The first transformation takes advantage of the massive pressure MVPDs place on traditional cable nets to not offer their programming direct to consumers. In this case, the HBOs and AMCs requirement that you authenticate your existing cable subscription in order to watch their programming over IP successfully persuades the cord-nevers to just avoid the programming on those networks until the hit shows are offered through Netflix or EST. Netflix, once again, looks like the hero. Those empty threats by Jeff Bewkes that he will never work with Netflix turned out to be, well, empty. The second transformation will take longer to fully prove out, but I believe it will happen. As more of our viewership takes place over IP, we lose our allegiance to networks as the point of distribution and allow new distributors to guide us toward content choice.

There is a third budding area of transformation, but I don’t yet see evidence that a business exists: Trying to repackage cable TV bundles and sell them over IP. Companies like Aereo and Nimble TV offer versions of this. I believe we live in a show-based world. Consumers aren’t looking for networks (with the exception of ESPN and regional sports nets) so much as they are looking for shows. Shows delivered over IP allow for the slow unbundling of television. One of the many challenges about this model for traditional broadcasters is that there is no advertising in this world. The traditional cable-net business model enjoys two great revenue streams — affiliate fees and ad dollars. In IP-delivered shows, there are no ads.

Who are the winners and losers in this model? Well, show creators continue to flourish. The new distributors enjoy great success. Of course, ISPs, who are often the same companies as the MVPDs, do fine in the ISP business, but I believe the decline in total cable subs will continue. In a world where shows do not contain advertising, why do we need Nielsen? They have been a measurement standard for decades, largely because advertisers needed a third-party validator of viewership. You can see why they have a vested interest in insisting TV ad viewership is not on the decline (despite everyone’s experience to the contrary). I don’t think cable nets are in immediate trouble. They enjoy a great business model now, and also get to reap EST or licensing benefits after the shows air. But the Netflix “House of Cards” effort shows that consumers will now expect to be able to watch shows whenever they want, and not be bothered by inconvenient broadcast schedules. The day is coming when the cable nets will have to respond.

For startups, one of the wide-open spaces seems to be in cross-provider discovery. Now that my shows are spread among Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and on my DVR, I would prefer one interface to reach them all. Companies like Dijit’s NextGuide, Peel, Squrl and Telly are taking cracks at this important space.

David Pakman is a partner at Venrock, focusing on ad tech, social/mobile media, consumer services, Web services, e-commerce, big data, SaaS and anything else hugely exciting and disruptive. This post is also live on his blog.

But that kind of chatter doesn’t matter much to Wall Street, which is very happy that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes has finally decided to dump his magazines. Time Warner shares closed at $53.63 today, up 2.5 percent since midday Tuesday, when the news first broke.

And that boost was enough to bring TWX to levels it hasn’t seen since the fall of 2007. Back then, Dick Parsons still ran the company, and it still owned AOL and Time Warner Cable. And Lehman Brothers wasn’t a smoking crater.

The bump reflects the certainty that even if the Meredith joint venture doesn’t happen — and my understanding is that those talks are quite far along at this point — Bewkes has now committed to dumping publishing, period.

Smart people I talk to say that if the Meredith deal falls apart, then the next step would be to pursue a public spinoff, a la Time Warner Cable and AOL. While I had originally assumed that both traditional publishers and non-strategic investors would want to take a crack at Time Inc., I’ve since become disabused of that notion: A straightforward sale would create a huge tax bill for Time Warner, because even in their declining state, some of these magazines are going to create huge capital gains. Spinning them off into a newco should solve that.

[Shutterstock/Andrew Bassett]

Jeff Bewkes

People have been wondering for a long time when Time Warner would sell off Time Inc. And for a long time, whenever anyone asked CEO Jeff Bewkes or senior management about the publishing company, they’d inevitably say something like “we like it, we’re keeping it.”

But when analyst Jessica Reif Cohen asked CFO John Martin the same question back in September, he gave a different answer, and people in and outside of Time Inc. took notice. Here’s the excerpt of their conversation at Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s media conference (I’ve highlighted  a few key parts):

Cohen: In June, News Corp announced plans to separate the publishing business and other small entities from the core media and entertainment franchises. In the second quarter, Time Inc., reported, or your publishing unit reported revenue down 9%, advertising was down 7%, subscription revenue 11%. I mean this is not really a great numbers, so they really kind of dragged down the overall company growth. I mean, would a separation of Time Inc. from your cable network and studio business make sense at some point?

Martin: I wouldn’t rule anything out at some point, but I don’t think it’s exactly synonymous Time Inc. to whatever News Corp’s decision was with respect to particularly newspapers. I mean, Time Inc. is a company that is dealing with nationally branded environments and transitioning to digital and there’s a lot of commonality between the strategy and the issues that we’re facing in our TV and home entertainment businesses as there is in our publishing businesses – probably more commonality now than there has been in the past.

Having said all of that, I would also – I think it’s fair to say we’re disappointed with the results at Time Inc. It’s being driven by the industry, not by the performance of the management, and so we’re proud of the management’s execution against what is a really, really difficult industry backdrop, but I would say – and I think our past is an indicator of this, given what we’ve done with Time Warner Cable and AOL – is that our job is to figure out how to value maximize. And so I wouldn’t rule anything out in the future, but right now, we are working hard and Laura Lang, the new CEO and her team, is working hard to figure out how to meaningfully transition that business to be a multi platform branded environments business, where we’re going to have to continue to obviously make sure that the costs match up against the revenue trajectory as well.

We’ve got a lot of great things going on at Time Warner, and we’re really proud of and while we’re proud of the performance of our publishing unit, within the publishing industry, I think it’s fair to say that we’re disappointed with the secular dynamics in publishing right now.

Translation: We’re in the TV and movie business, and we happen to have a publishing company. We’ll say good things about our publishing company, but please notice that we’ve already sold off our cable pipe business and our Internet business. Meanwhile, we’re going to have to cut costs.

Last week, Time Inc. took care of the cost-cutting part. So today’s report, from Time Inc. publication Fortune, that Time Warner is talking to a “serious buyer” about offloading most of its Time Inc. titles, including People, shouldn’t be a huge surprise.

Since we’re all speculating about buyers, let me suggest that you certainly don’t have to be in the publishing business to be interested in buying most of Time Inc.

The magazine industry is in trouble, but the world’s biggest magazine publisher still makes a lot of money — $420 million in operating profit last year. Wouldn’t be shocked to see a financial buyer who thinks they can cut more costs and pocket a lot of the profit. [UPDATE: The New York Times reports that Meredith, the publisher that puts out titles like Better Homes and Gardens, is the mystery buyer. Still think that "non-strategics" will take a looksee.]

Time Inc. corporate parent, Time Warner, disclosed the number as part of its guidance for its 2013 financials.

Restructuring charges aren’t new for Time Inc., because the publisher has been downsizing itself for years. In 2012, the company racked up $27 million in restructuring charges, up from $18 million in 2011.

Time Inc.’s Q4 numbers help explain why CEO Laura Lang is cutting some 500 jobs: Revenue was down 7 percent, to $967 million, and ad revenue was down 4 percent. But the publisher is still the world’s biggest, and it still makes piles of money: Operating income was down 3 percent, to $200 million.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes may have more to say about the future of his publishing unit during his call later this am; I’ll listen in.

In other words, HBO will port its popular HBO Go app to Apple TV, just like it has already done with Roku and Microsoft’s Xbox.

For the record, no comment from Apple. And here’s a non-comment comment from HBO: “We’ve said we would like HBO GO accessible on all preferred platforms so we are always having discussions with a variety of companies.”

Anyway, when it does come, it will be a nice extra for HBO subscribers. Because HBO Go has a much deeper catalog than you can get from the HBO on-demand service you get via cable and satellite.

But that’s about it.*

And if you want to start imagining that this is a precursor to HBO actually selling itself over the Web on an a la carte basis, well, I can’t stop you. But you’re wrong: HBO isn’t ditching the pay-TV bundle anytime soon, because it thinks that bundle works really well. And so does HBO’s owner, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes.

You can have a lot of fun arguing with the HBO guys about why they think that, when so many of us Internet geniuses are convinced they’re wrong. And that’s certainly going to come up when we talk to HBO president Eric Kessler next month at our Dive Into Media conference.

But here’s another question:  Why isn’t everyone on Apple TV right now? Or more precisely, why doesn’t Apple open its box to outside developers, the same way Roku has?

Opening up the platform to the rest of the world sure seemed to work well for the iPhone (recall that the App Store didn’t show up until the iPhone had been in the market for a year). But, right now, Apple TV has a grand total of nine outside apps (one of which comes from The Wall Street Journal, which, like this site, is owned by News Corp.).

Why hasn’t Apple let a thousand TV apps bloom? Dunno. I get the sense that Tim Cook and company are very particular about the way Apple TV apps look and work, down to the pixel. But you can be very serious about quality control and still manage to get more than nine apps on your box, if you want to.

So there has to be another reason. But maybe not a permanent one. If I had to bet, I’d say we’ll see Apple open up its TV box a whole lot sooner than HBO goes a la carte.

*Apple TV is pretty portable, so, depending on the way that HBO and the pay-TV guys handle their login/passwords, I can imagine a scenario where you bring your box to someone’s house who doesn’t have HBO, and set it up so you can watch “Girls” on their big screen. That would be nice, too.**

**It will be interesting to compare and contrast the video quality that HBO Go/Apple TV/broadband delivers versus an HD cable picture. On the cheapo set + Time Warner Cable set-up that I’ve got at home, I’ve noticed that “The Daily Show” on Hulu/Apple TV is good, but notably a bit more “computery” than the picture I get via Comedy Central’s HD feed.

The two companies announced a new pact today that will move more Time Warner shows to Netflix: Animated stuff from Turner’s Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, along with TNT’s “Dallas.”

As with every other Netflix TV deal, these are all repeats: No one is selling Netflix stuff that they’re still running on their own network.

But, at the right price, the deal is a nice addition for Netflix, particularly the Cartoon Network stuff, which bolsters a kids lineup that’s already a key part of the service.

It also helps buffer Netflix in case Viacom gets itchy and ends up taking away its Nickelodeon programming when that deal ends. And the Adult Swim stuff is great for stoners.

Bigger picture: This is the third deal Netflix has made to get its hands on Time Warner programming. In October 2011, it paid up big for stuff that used to run on the CW Network, which is jointly owned by Time Warner and CBS. Last week, it struck another deal for shows made by Warner Bros. studio, including NBC’s “Revolution.”

Biggest picture: This doesn’t mean that you’re going to get the video stuff Time Warner values the most — its movies and its HBO shows — on Netflix, now or ever.

Jeff Bewkes has made it quite clear that he’s happy to use Netflix as a syndication outlet for stuff he’s already gotten maximum value from. If Reed Hastings thinks he can make money with Bewkes’s leftovers, he is happy to sell them.

Amazon’s Prime Customers can now watch “The Closer,” the crime series that ran for seven years on TNT, and “Falling Skies,” the earthlings-versus-aliens drama that’s still running on Turner’s cable channel.

“The Closer” never got the kind of critical buzz heaped on “Mad Men,” etc., but it was very popular. And “Falling Skies” does pretty well, too.

A press release says viewers can watch “current” episodes of the latter, but that’s a bit misleading — you won’t be able to watch any new shows from the series until at least three months after the end of a new season.

So those are nice additions for Amazon. But not game-changers for the service, which doesn’t appear to be attracting many eyeballs right now — at least not compared to Netflix.

The main reason the deal is worth noting is that it’s another exclusive for Amazon and Time Warner, which has held almost all of its streaming content off of Netflix. Earlier this year, the two companies announced a deal to stream “The West Wing,” “Fringe,” and other Time Warner-owned shows on Amazon.

Meanwhile, the only Time Warner-owned content that you can see via Netflix streaming are shows that ran on the CW Network, which is co-owned by Time Warner and CBS.

But it wouldn’t be a shock to see that change sooner than later: While Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes used to go out of his way to denigrate Reed Hastings’s service, his newish position is that he’s happy to take a Netflix check — once he’s finished selling his stuff everywhere else.

The renewal was largely expected, as Mr. Bewkes had said in September he planned to retain the role for another five years.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Jefferies & Co.’s James Kisner says at least one major cable operator is conducting tests to determine if it could handle the sort of bandwidth demands that a full-fledged, connected Apple HDTV might generate.

“Our discussions with industry contacts suggest that at least one major North American multiple system operator is working to estimate how much additional capacity may be needed for a new Apple device on their broadband data network,” Kisner wrote in a note to clients. “We believe this potentially suggests an imminent launch of the Apple TV.”

At least part of that sentence makes sense. Back in August, The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was “in talks with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators” about partnerships.

More recently, Time Warner Cable COO Rob Marcus told attendees of the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference that the company would consider selling TV subscriptions using third-party technology, even if “in some of those cases that may mean giving up control of the interface.”

Marcus didn’t name Apple outright, but it’s pretty clear to whom he was referring.

The idea, then, that a big cable company might be investigating what sort of impact an Apple HDTV — or Apple set-top box — might have on its network is perfectly reasonable.

Sources tell AllThingsD that Apple has indeed had talks with a few large cable operators about some new TV product. It makes sense that one of them might be doing its due diligence on capacity issues and whatnot.

But the idea that a “potentially … imminent” launch is in the works seems harder to take seriously.

For starters, Apple has already steered analysts away from the notion that it will have something to say about a TV solution soon. More important: If Apple were close to launching a new service, it would almost certainly be in touch with TV programmers about new arrangements, and we haven’t heard anything along those lines.

In other words, there are still a lot of missing pieces here, and while a major cable provider running what-if scenarios on a rumored Apple product is certainly interesting, it’s not necessarily a trumpet fanfare announcing its imminent arrival.

The culprit for the dyspeptic reaction: The company’s Q3 domestic subscription numbers — as well as its guidance for Q4 — fell below investors’ expectations.

But if things are tough for Netflix how, they’re only going to get tougher.

The company used to have the Web home video market more or less to itself, and now it doesn’t. It’s facing competition from Amazon, Hulu and the cable companies, and is about to start fighting a joint venture between Redbox and Verizon.

That’s not a new observation, of course. But in this quarter’s letter to shareholders, Hastings spells out the strengths and weaknesses of many of his competitors, and it makes for very interesting reading. The two biggest takeaways I found on my first scan:

• For the first time, Amazon appears to be making headway against Netflix with its digital offering.
• Netflix doesn’t believe HBO and Time Warner executives when they say they’re not going to sell a Web-only offering. They expect to compete directly with the pay channel, via an a la carte Web offering, in the U.S.

The breakdown: Jeff Bezos and company have been building up a digital streaming service that they’ve been bundling with their Prime service for a couple years now. And for a couple years, Netflix — as well as the studios that sell Amazon their programming — has said that consumers don’t seem to be using Amazon’s service very much.

If I’m interpreting Hastings’ comments correctly, that’s changing. Here’s what Hastings said about Amazon last quarter, which echoes comments he has made for several quarters: “We have yet to see Hulu Plus or Amazon Prime gain meaningful traction relative to our viewing hours.”

But here’s Hastings today: “Our estimate is that viewing of Amazon Prime Instant Video has yet to pass that of Hulu.” Perhaps I’m misreading Hastings’ comments here, but he chooses his words pretty carefully (and I’m told he does write these things himself). And to me, there’s a real difference there — one that reads as if Bezos is coming up in Hasting’s rear-view mirror.

As far as HBO goes, no interpretation needed here. While everyone from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes on down says that HBO needs to be tied to the pay cable business in the U.S., Hastings says that’s going to change: “We think it will make strategic sense eventually for HBO to go direct-to-consumer in the U.S., and become more of a competitor to Netflix; so, that is our operating assumption …”

It’s possible that Hastings is wrong here — I’m quite sure Bewkes isn’t bringing him in for confidential strategy discussions.

But if he’s right, that’s great news for the “I want ‘Game of Thrones’ and I don’t want to pay for cable” crowd. And a real serious challenge for Hastings and his shareholders.

But the bottom line hasn’t changed. Apple keeps poking at the TV industrial complex, and keeps concluding that it’s better off playing along than playing a new game.

To spell that out: If Apple really wanted to change the way people watched TV, it would change the way people paid for TV. And that would involve setting up new arrangements with the people who make TV content.

But Apple can’t do that — either because the content guys don’t want to change the way their business works, or Apple isn’t willing to pay enough to make them change. Or both.

The result is the same: If you want to use a theoretical Apple TV of the future, you’re still going to end up paying someone a monthly fee for a bundle of channels, the majority of which you don’t watch.

Depending on how the deal works out, you may end up paying a pay-TV provider, or paying a broadband provider plus a programming provider. But the results will effectively be the same — and your checks will probably end up getting cashed by the same people, regardless, since there’s little to no competition for the pipe that goes into your living room.

You can argue that this is terrible for consumers (because they subsidize waste), or that it’s great for consumers (because all the other consumers subsidize their favorite programs). But it’s a model that has proven very hard to dislodge.

If Apple — or anyone else — wants to blow it up, they’re going to have to find a way to get people the stuff they want without paying for everything else.

There are a couple ways of going about that:

• You could drive very big trucks full of cash up to the existing content guys, and pay them a ginormous amount of money to sell their stuff — say, pro football — directly to your new TV business, with the understanding that they might lose their existing deals with everyone else. Apple, Google and a handful of other big tech companies could afford to do this, but they have yet to do so.
• Or you could build up a whole lot of stuff that people end up valuing as much or more than the stuff they’re already paying for, and deliver that to your customers directly. Google and YouTube are playing with this, but the $200-million-plus they’re betting on “channels” isn’t an all-in bet. It’s just a test.

Meanwhile, if you want to play by the TV industrial complex’s rules, those guys are happy to play along. See: Google, which is in the process of competing directly with the established cable providers, but is still able to get cable TV programming — even from from Viacom, which is still suing Google — because it is acting just like any other pay-TV provider.

It’s fun to imagine a world where Apple helps get you your TV, and it’s very likely that an Apple TV experience would be much better than the cable TV experience you have now. Imagine ditching that craptastic TV guide for a sleek one designed by Jony Ive!

But unless Apple TV is going to offer something fundamentally different than the choice consumers have today, it’s hard to get riled up about this stuff.

——

For the record: So what does Tim Cook have to say about all this? Here’s the most specific answer he gave about Apple TV’s answer at the D10 conference in May – which is to say, a very oblique answer:

Walt Mossberg: As you think about improving the television experience, because you just said you’re thinking about that, can it be done with a box and leave the kind of big panel and everything to other people, and just really build a lot of smarts and software and other things into a box and not build the whole thing?
Tim Cook: Here’s the way, Walt, we would look at that is –
Mossberg: Whether it’s you or anybody.
Cook: We would look not just at this area but other areas and ask: can we control the key technology? Can we make a significant contribution, far beyond what others have done in this area? Can we make a product that we all want, because we think we’re reasonably good proxies for others? And so, those are all the things that we would ask about any new product category. It’s the ones we ask about products within families that we’re already announced. And so this is sort of how we think about it and how we look at it.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120816/apples-new-tv-plan-same-tv-different-box/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120803/cbs-loves-apple-tv-in-theory/ http://allthingsd.com/20120803/cbs-loves-apple-tv-in-theory/#comments Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:56:01 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=237602 CBS boss Les Moonves gets asked a lot about his willingness to do business with Apple. And his answer is always the same: “Sure! As long as it’s on our terms.”

Yesterday’s earnings call was no exception. Here’s the full exchange between the CBS CEO and analyst Anthony DiClemente, via Seeking Alpha.

Anthony J. DiClemente — Barclays Capital, Research Division

Okay. And then one for Les. You — I’m sure — you may have seen that Apple TV added Hulu onto its platform this week. I’m just wondering, when you think about Apple, are you in any way philosophically opposed to offering CBS on the Apple TV platform? And I know I — just from prior experience, I’m sure your answer will have something to do with getting paid for your content. But more specifically, is there anything you need to see or specifically anything you need to get in order to be convinced that that’s a smart strategy for CBS?

Leslie Moonves

Look, Anthony, you’ve — we’ve had this discussion many times before. You’re right, it depends what the terms are, it depends what we get paid for. It depends on what effect Apple TV would have on either our advertising, our syndication or our retrans, which are our three main buckets of revenue for our content. So if it fits in well, like Netflix did and Amazon did, we’re happy to discuss it. If it doesn’t and we’re — they’re using our content to build a business, we’re not quite as favorable to that. So the devil is in the details. I know it sounds like a pat answer, but it’s really true.

Even in the transcript, it’s funny to watch Moonves and DiClemente go through the motions on this one. But I’m highlighting it here because it illustrates that digital video no longer seems like a conundrum to CBS and all the other big TV programmers. It seems pretty routine.

There are two main options:

Sell the old stuff: Once CBS and the other networks have aired their shows on their own networks, they’re generally happy to resell them, at nearly 100 percent profit. Recent programming goes to a la carte “electronic sell-through” stores, like iTunes; older stuff will show up on subscription services. For instance, now that CBS has stopped showing “CSI: Miami” after a 10-year run, that show is likely to end up on Netflix, Moonves said yesterday.

Sell the new stuff: If you want to run the current shows that CBS and others offer — the way the pay-TV providers do — then you have to act like a pay-TV provider, too. That means buying all of their program bundles, at market rates. Which is what Google is doing with its new Google Fiber TV service. And it’s the same proposition that Intel and other would-be “over the top” services are considering now.

It’s possible that Apple tries some brand-new option that the programmers haven’t seen before, like it did three years ago, when it was pitching a $30-a-month package for stuff that had just aired. And the new “channel-as-app” model that’s emerging on Apple’s devices and others offers some room for experimentation.

But the new semi-conventional wisdom — embraced by folks like Time Warner’s Jeff Bewkes — is that if Apple wants to get deeper into TV, it will work with the TV guys on the terms they already know.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120803/cbs-loves-apple-tv-in-theory/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120801/time-inc-droops-again/ http://allthingsd.com/20120801/time-inc-droops-again/#comments Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:19:49 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=236844 Time Warner took time to boast about HBO during its earnings call this morning. But it was harder to brag about its Time Inc. publishing unit, which had another lousy quarter: Revenue was down 9 percent, and operating income was down 43 percent.

The best thing Jeff Bewkes and company could say about Time Inc. is that the rest of the publishing business is doing lousy, too. And that new boss Laura Lang is getting a plan together after six months on the job. Oh, and they said that the numbers won’t look as bad next quarter, because they’ll be going up against easier year-over-year comparisons.

Still, the “environment here remains challenging,” CFO John Martin deadpanned.

Here’s a slightly deeper dive: Subscription revenues were down 11 percent, and ad revenues were down 7 percent. The ad numbers would have been worse if Time hadn’t retaken control of SI.com and Golf.com from corporate cousin Turner during the quarter — Martin said if you took away the bump those properties provided, ads would have been down 9 percent.

Lang can seek solace in the fact that digital ads in general fared better than print, which means they were about flat instead of drooping.

And Bewkes held out the idea that Time Inc. will increasingly be a digital company instead of a print one. Which is the reason he brought on Lang, the former head of digital ad shop Digitas, in the first place.

“It’s way too reductive to conclude that ‘publishing’ has a constrained future,” he said, touting the company’s recent iPad subscription deal with Apple.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120801/time-inc-droops-again/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120801/hbo-ignores-internet-geniuses-sells-more-hbo/ http://allthingsd.com/20120801/hbo-ignores-internet-geniuses-sells-more-hbo/#comments Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:41:35 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=236624 We all agree that it would be awesome if HBO would let us subscribe to the pay-TV service without paying for TV, via the Web.

And many of us agree that HBO will eventually do that, one day. Maybe.

For now, though, the only way you can get HBO is if you already get some kind of pay-TV service. And that model seems to be working just fine.

Today, parent company Time Warner said HBO and its sister channel Cinemax added more than seven million subscribers in the last six months. At the end of last year, the two channels had 92.9 million subs, and today Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said the total was more than 100 million; Bewkes wouldn’t break out HBO-specific numbers, but said HBO would end 2012 with more domestic subscribers than it had in 2011. [Just to spell this out clearly: The 100 million-plus number is an international total. It's possible that much of the growth comes from outside the U.S., but Bewkes made a point of noting domestic growth as well. Thanks to Phillip Swann for the gentle nudge.]

Time Warner said the HBO boost helped push subscription revenue at its TV networks by 6 percent, to $2.17 billion, in the last quarter.

Even if HBO revenues were relatively flat, you’re not going to see the company break down and offer Web-only, a la carte access to “Game of Thrones” and the rest of its programming anytime soon. Because Bewkes has built his entire business strategy around pay TV, and thinks cord-cutting is basically a myth — or at least not an idea he wants to engage with.

Here he is today, addressing the notion of a Web-only “HBO Go” service (for translation purposes, “multichannel TV” = “pay TV, via cable, satellite or telcos”):

The mistake everybody makes when they think about this, is that there aren’t that many homes with broadband and multichannel TV … it’s not that people want to not have multichannel TV and have HBO. Most people have multichannel TV.

There are 10s of millions of homes with multichannel TV. And they will keep multichannel TV. And they aren’t currently subscribing to HBO. That’s the opportunity.

And that gets into a question of all those people are hooked up to our distributors, and it’s a question of how to have that distribution plan market HBO in a more attractive way. So it’s easier for people to hook up, and they don’t have to, for example, buy things that they don’t want to buy.

But the whole idea that there’s a lot of people out there that want to drop multichannel TV, and just have a Netflix or an HBO — that’s not right. Look for the data, you won’t find them.

That doesn’t mean that Time Warner won’t work with nontraditional pay TV providers, though. Bewkes told analysts on his call that “you ought to be optimistic” that his cable channels will get a deal done with Google Fiber’s TV product. That sounds right to me.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120801/hbo-ignores-internet-geniuses-sells-more-hbo/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120621/after-divorcing-sports-illustrated-turner-wants-to-hook-up-with-bleacher-report/ http://allthingsd.com/20120621/after-divorcing-sports-illustrated-turner-wants-to-hook-up-with-bleacher-report/#comments Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:05:20 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=222667 Bleacher Report and Turner, which have been circling each other for months, are edging closer to a deal. People familiar with both companies say they haven’t agreed on final terms, but are now negotiating exclusively and have agreed on a price: If the transaction goes through, Time Warner’s cable network unit is set to pay more than $200 million for the sports site.

The logic for the deal is that Turner has a small presence in online sports — it manages sites like PGA.com and NBA.com, but doesn’t own them — and Bleacher Report’s nine-million-plus visitors will help fix that.

But it’s worth nothing that, up until this spring, Turner used to have a much bigger presence in online sports, via an arranged marriage that didn’t seem to make either participant very happy: For the last couple years, Turner managed Sports Illustrated’s Web site on behalf of Time Warner’s Time Inc.

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is famously uninterested in corporate synergy, so I’m not quite sure why he thought having the cable guys sell ads for the print guys would work. And from what I could tell, no one on either side liked the deal. The guys who made the content for the site thought the ad guys didn’t do a bang-up job, and vice versa.*

But that pairing ended in divorce this quarter, and Turner’s sports group has said it was going to create its own “branded digital destination.”

Perhaps they’ve decided that buying is easier than building. As it turns out, Bleacher Report’s traffic matches up almost precisely with SI.com’s, according to comScore. Convenient! (Click to enlarge.)

 
*This dynamic, we should note, also exists at nearly every commercial Web site, everywhere.

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Everett Collection)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120621/after-divorcing-sports-illustrated-turner-wants-to-hook-up-with-bleacher-report/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120502/time-inc-shrinking-again/ http://allthingsd.com/20120502/time-inc-shrinking-again/#comments Wed, 02 May 2012 12:11:42 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=202345 Not a good sign for the magazine business: A rough quarter for Time Inc., the world’s biggest magazine publisher.

Revenues dropped 3 percent for the first three months of the year, while operating income shrank by 38 percent.

Corporate parent Time Warner blamed the decline on both slowing ad sales (down 5 percent) and newsstand sales (circulation revenue was down 2 percent).

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes occasionally calls out Time Inc.’s efforts to get its titles onto the iPad and other tablets, and the unit has some digital success stories on the Web. But no one expects Time Inc. to turn into a high-growth business again.

Still, over the last few years it has managed to at least show improvements in its operating profits, as a result of layoffs and corporate restructuring.

Laura Lang, the unit’s newly appointed CEO, is Time Inc.’s third boss in two years. She has her work cut out for her.

 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120502/time-inc-shrinking-again/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111216/hbo-go-is-finally-going-to-be-on-time-warner-cable/ http://allthingsd.com/20111216/hbo-go-is-finally-going-to-be-on-time-warner-cable/#comments Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:02:02 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=154827 It took a while, but it’s finally a done deal: Time Warner Cable subscribers who also subscribe to Time Warner’s HBO will soon be able to get HBO Go, the pay channel’s Web and mobile service.

The two companies say the service will go into a “brief beta trial” and will then be available to all Time Warner Cable subscribers (again, as long as they’re also HBO customers), “in the next month.”

Depending on how you look at it, the agreement either extends the reach of Time Warner’s “TV Everywhere” program, or fills an embarrassing hole. Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two separate companies that split up in 2009, so programming deals between the two aren’t automatic, by any means.

But that explanation didn’t do much to appease Time Warner Cable customers who wanted the service. The cable company has 14 million subscribers, making it the country’s second-biggest cable provider after Comcast.

Time Warner rolled out HBO Go this summer to very positive reviews; Time Warner says users have downloaded five million apps for Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android devices. Earlier this month, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said that HBO Go users watch up to 50 percent more of the channel’s programming.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111216/hbo-go-is-finally-going-to-be-on-time-warner-cable/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111206/hbo-ipad-more-hbo-watching-steady-hbo-subscribers/ http://allthingsd.com/20111206/hbo-ipad-more-hbo-watching-steady-hbo-subscribers/#comments Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:12:58 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=150869 A move to let people who subscribe to HBO watch the pay channel’s shows on iPads and other gadgets has increased total viewership. But it hasn’t moved the Time Warner unit’s subscriber figures.

HBO Go users, who can watch shows like “Game of Thrones” on their iPad, iPhones, and Android devices, watch 30 percent to 50 percent more than non-users*, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said today at the UBS media conference.

But Bewkes said that the pay channel’s subscriber count had been “stable” in the past year, which would mean it still has about 28 million paying customers.

That makes sense, given that the “TV Everywhere” strategy Bewkes has been pushing isn’t focused on attracting more customers but in keeping the ones he has — especially those tempted to seek out video entertainment via the Web, or services like Netflix.

Meanwhile, Bewkes was careful to note that those viewership bumps may not continue, given that HBO Go is still primarily in the hands of early adopters, though that’s still a decent-sized number. Last month Time Warner announced that the HBO Go app had hit the 5 million download mark for Android and iOS users.

Speaking of Netflix — just in case you didn’t get the message via this weekend’s interview with the Financial Times — Bewkes reiterated his position on the service. He’s happy to sell them stuff he can’t sell anymore. Services like Netflix and Hulu “can definitely add value to all of us, if you’re trying to get that obscure movie that you haven’t seen yet,” he said.

That kind of faint praise may explain why Bewkes’s initial assessment of Reed Hastings’s company today — “Netflix is our friend” — drew laughs from the audience.

*Bewkes didn’t specify whether that 30 to 50 percent increase was for TV viewing, or an aggregate number that includes TV + devices. I’m assuming the latter, but have asked Time Warner reps to clarify. UPDATE: Yup, aggregate.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111206/hbo-ipad-more-hbo-watching-steady-hbo-subscribers/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111205/jeff-bewkes-renames-netflix-its-not-the-albanian-army-its-a-flying-hamburger/ http://allthingsd.com/20111205/jeff-bewkes-renames-netflix-its-not-the-albanian-army-its-a-flying-hamburger/#comments Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:30:31 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=150020 A year ago, when Netflix stock was soaring and lots of smart people thought the company could upend the cable industry, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes went out of his way to diminish the video service: The “Albanian Army,” he famously called it.

And if you didn’t understand that one, he offered another metaphor: A “200-pound chimp.”

In the following months, Bewkes cut back on his rhetoric, which may or may not have had anything to do with a lucrative deal to sell reruns of “Gossip Girl” to Netflix. But now that deal has been inked, Netflix stock has been crushed and lots of smart people think the video service may be on a permanent spiral.

So here’s Bewkes again, damning his new partners with very faint praise, this time in the Financial Times instead of the New York Times: Netflix and similar services (read: Hulu and Amazon, for now) can’t get the best stuff anymore, he says, and are stuck showing “archival content that nobody would want in Blockbuster.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Bewkes adds. “It can do certain things and not other things. It can fly, it’s not a submarine. Don’t turn a hamburger into a cow.”

And that is how a pro mixes metaphors and backhanded compliments.

Again, remember that the real purpose of this stuff isn’t to hurt Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’s feelings — Hastings can probably take it — but to make Time Warner shareholders feel better about the company’s cable holdings. Because Time Warner’s cable channels — like TBS and TNT, and its HBO premium channel — are absolutely competing with Netflix for viewer time and dollars, no matter how much either company tries to insist otherwise.

Does this sort of semi-smack-talk entertain you? (It’s okay to admit it. Me, too.) Then you’ll want to check back on Tuesday: Both Bewkes and Hastings are scheduled to present that day at the annual UBS Media/Telecom conference. I’ll be there to record the slings and arrows, and I’ll report back.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111205/jeff-bewkes-renames-netflix-its-not-the-albanian-army-its-a-flying-hamburger/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111013/netflix-gets-gossip-girl-and-a-time-warner-deal/ http://allthingsd.com/20111013/netflix-gets-gossip-girl-and-a-time-warner-deal/#comments Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:02:08 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=131963 See? Netflix and Time Warner can play nicely after all.

The video rental company has a new licensing deal for shows from the teen-centric CW network, which is jointly owned by CBS and Time Warner’s Warner Bros. studio.

This one has been in the works for quite some time, despite the fact that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes had made a point of belittling Netflix as “the Albanian Army” last year. But last spring, as the two companies continued to talk about distribution deals, Bewkes softened his rhetoric and explained that he would be quite happy to sell his reruns to the service.

Like other Netflix deals, this will be for reruns that are at least one season old — the company has stayed away from licensing “in-season” content. But if you want to watch last year’s “Gossip Girl” or “Vampire Diaries,” you’ll be able to stream those starting this Friday.

And like other recent Netflix deals, this is an “output” deal, which means Netflix gets the right to run shows that haven’t aired yet; the company has locked in everything the network will air through the 2014-2015 season. Netflix executives are increasingly pointing to this part of their content deals as a differentiator between their service and Amazon, which has been licensing much older shows for its streaming content deals.

The deal isn’t exclusive, though. Warner Bros. and CBS can still sell the shows via traditional distributors and other digital providers, with some restrictions.

Reminder: Netflix, which has lost about 60 percent of its market cap since this summer, reports Q3 earnings Oct. 24.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111013/netflix-gets-gossip-girl-and-a-time-warner-deal/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111005/tech-titans-pay-tribute-to-steve-jobs/ http://allthingsd.com/20111005/tech-titans-pay-tribute-to-steve-jobs/#comments Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:08:24 +0000 Liz Gannes http://allthingsd.com/?p=129246 Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’s death today at the age of 56 has given many of his peers reason for pause. Here are their tributes.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin paid tribute to Jobs’s “passion for excellence,” while co-founder and CEO Larry Page said he appreciated Jobs’s advice past and present.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said in an emailed statement:

Today is very sad for all of us. Steve defined a generation of style and technology that’s unlikely to be matched again. Steve was so charismatically brilliant that he inspired people to do the impossible, and he will be remembered as the greatest computer innovator in history.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg thanked Jobs for being “a mentor and a friend.”

Here’s his status message:

Pixar’s John Lasseter and Ed Catmull said:

Steve Jobs was an extraordinary visionary, our very dear friend and the guiding light of the Pixar family. He saw the potential of what Pixar could be before the rest of us, and beyond what anyone ever imagined. Steve took a chance on us and believed in our crazy dream of making computer animated films; the one thing he always said was to simply ‘make it great.’ He is why Pixar turned out the way we did and his strength, integrity and love of life has made us all better people. He will forever be a part of Pixar’s DNA. Our hearts go out to his wife Laurene and their children during this incredibly difficult time.

Here’s Disney CEO Bob Iger’s statement:

Steve Jobs was a great friend as well as a trusted advisor. His legacy will extend far beyond the products he created or the businesses he built. It will be the millions of people he inspired, the lives he changed, and the culture he defined. Steve was such an “original,” with a thoroughly creative, imaginative mind that defined an era. Despite all he accomplished, it feels like he was just getting started. With his passing the world has lost a rare original, Disney has lost a member of our family, and I have lost a great friend. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Laurene and his children during this difficult time.

In a tweet, AOL co-founder Steve Case called Jobs “the most innovative entrepreneur of our generation.”

I feel honored to have known Steve Jobs. He was the most innovative entrepreneur of our generation. His legacy will live on for the ages.

October 5, 2011 5:36 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@SteveCase

Steve Case

Bill Gates said: “I will miss Steve immensely.”

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted that Jobs had gone beyond raising the bar.

Once in a rare while, somebody comes along who doesnt just raise the bar, they create an entirely new standard of measurement. #RIPSteveJobs

October 5, 2011 5:58 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@dickc

dick costolo

Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen said in an emailed statement, “Steve was the shining light of our industry — he showed us what was possible … He set the bar.”

Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said:

The entire Time Warner family mourns the loss of Steve Jobs. The world is a better place because of Steve, and the stories our company tells have been made richer by the products he created. He was a dynamic and fearless competitor, collaborator, and friend. In a society that has seen incredible technological innovation during our lifetimes, Steve may be the one true icon whose legacy will be remembered for a thousand years.

RIAA CEO Cary Sherman said:

Like all music fans, we are saddened to hear of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was a larger-than-life personality — passionate about music and one of its biggest fans and advocates. He was a true visionary who forever transformed how fans access and enjoy music. With the introduction of the iTunes software and other platforms, Steve and Apple made it once again easy and accepted to pay for music. His legacy will live on, long past his all-too-short time on earth.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said:

Tonight, America lost a genius who will be remembered with Edison and Einstein, and whose ideas will shape the world for generations to come. Again and again over the last four decades, Steve Jobs saw the future and brought it to life long before most people could even see the horizon. And Steve’s passionate belief in the power of technology to transform the way we live brought us more than smart phones and iPads: it brought knowledge and power that is reshaping the face of civilization. In New York City’s government, everyone from street construction inspectors to NYPD detectives have harnessed Apple’s products to do their jobs more efficiently and intuitively. Tonight our City — a city that has always had such respect and admiration for creative genius — joins with people around the planet in remembering a great man and keeping Laurene and the rest of the Jobs family in our thoughts and prayers.

Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello said:

Steve was one of a kind. For many of us working in technology and entertainment, Steve was a new kind of hero that lead with big, bold moves and would not settle for less than perfection. He is the best role model for a leader that aspires to be great.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch:

Today, we lost one of the most influential thinkers, creators and entrepreneurs of all time. Steve Jobs was simply the greatest CEO of his generation. While I am deeply saddened by his passing, I’m reminded of the stunning impact he had in revolutionizing the way people consume media and entertainment. My heart goes out to his family and to everyone who had the opportunity to work beside him in bringing his many visions to life.

Warren Buffett said: “He was one of the most remarkable business managers and innovators in american business history.”

Former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz (full interview at the Wall Street Journal):

It’s the ultimate sadness … He was a very special person, and he didn’t get to where he was by having people like him all the time. He got to where he was because he had a vision and a purpose. It’s easy to try and please everyone, but he kept to his principles.

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson:

We are saddened by the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was an iconic inventor, visionary, and entrepreneur, and we had the privilege to know him as partner and friend. All of us at AT&T offer our thoughts and prayers to Steve’s wife, family, and his Apple family.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer:

I want to express my deepest condolences at the passing of Steve Jobs, one of the founders of our industry and a true visionary. My heart goes out to his family, everyone at Apple and everyone who has been touched by his work.

Google has posted a Jobs memorial on its homepage:

Conde Nast President Bob Sauerberg:

Steve was a great visionary and innovator. He invented paid digital content and we are grateful for that. His products over the years have been key in the development of high quality Conde Nast content. Our companies have always be aligned on unique design and high quality. Conde Nast sends sincere sympathy to his family and our friends at Apple.

Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie, co-chiefs of BlackBerry maker Research in Motion, said:

“Steve Jobs was a great visionary and a respected competitor. We extend our deepest condolences to his family and to all of the employees of Apple.”

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman said:

“Steve Jobs was an iconic entrepreneur and businessman whose impact on technology was felt beyond Silicon Valley. He will be remembered for the innovation he brought to market and the inspiration he brought to the world.”

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said:

“Steve was a teacher to anyone paying attention, and today is a very sad day for everyone who cares about innovation and high standards.”

RELATED POSTS:

• Samsung, Google Cancel Launch Event Out of Respect for Steve Jobs
• Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Say Goodbye to Steve Jobs
• An Accountant’s Soul Presides Over the P&L at Apple
• New York Times Crossword Honors Steve Jobs With Puzzle Written by Quora Engineer
• For Steve (Comic)
• Walt Mossberg Reflects on Life and Career of Steve Jobs for Fox Business (Video)
• Apple Shares Rise
• Steve Jobs Biography Arrives in October, a Month Early
• Now What? The Post-Jobs Era in Tech.
• Thoughts on the First Day of Apple’s Post-Jobs Era
• How Will Apple Shares Fare Today?
• Tributes to Steve Jobs, in Pictures
• The Three Irreplaceable Qualities of Steve Jobs
• Walt Mossberg: The Steve Jobs I Knew
• Remembering the Life of Steve Jobs
• Steve Jobs in His Own Words
• Barack Obama On Steve Jobs
• Tech and Media Titans Pay Tribute to Steve Jobs
• Steve Jobs’s Appearances at D, the Full Video Sessions
• Bill Gates: “I Will Miss Steve Immensely”
• Steve Jobs Through the Years: Highlights and Clips From the D Conference
• Steve Jobs Has Died

Steve Jobs Full Coverage »

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111005/tech-titans-pay-tribute-to-steve-jobs/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111004/microsoft-puts-more-tv-in-your-xbox-as-long-as-you-keep-paying-for-cable/ http://allthingsd.com/20111004/microsoft-puts-more-tv-in-your-xbox-as-long-as-you-keep-paying-for-cable/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:39:53 +0000 Peter Kafka http://allthingsd.com/?p=128657 Microsoft is readying a long slew of announcements for tomorrow about new features it will cram into its Xbox, according to people briefed on the company’s plans. Of interest to many of you: The ability to use the game system as a cable box/streaming video service.

Which sounds cool!

But let’s be clear about what this is: An extension of the “TV Everywhere”/“authentication” concept that lets cable subscribers watch programming via alternate delivery systems.

And let’s be clear about what this isn’t: A tool for cable cord cutters or cord shavers.

Bloomberg laid most of this out last month in a story previewing tomorrow’s announcement. Steve Ballmer has been “promoting the Xbox 360 console as a way to switch easily between games, DVDs and pay TV” — not as a way to ditch cable. Which is why cable providers and programmers like Comcast and Verizon are working with him.

Another way to think about it: Look at the iPad and iPhone apps we’ve already seen from the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision and ESPN. They let subscribers watch some (though usually not all) of what they can get from their various cable packages on a different device. The Xbox deals should work the same way.

A more direct analogy: This will be an extension of deals Microsoft has already put together with the likes of ESPN, which gives some cable subscribers access to the network’s ESPN3 digital channel via their game boxes. (UPDATE: Readers note that the ESPN3-Xbox deal doesn’t require a cable subscription, but a broadband Internet subscription from particular providers. So it’s theoretically possible for an Xbox owner to get Comcast broadband — but not cable — and still get sports beamed to his TV.)

There’s always a miniscule chance that one of Microsoft’s partners will stray way outside the reservation and actually offer cable-like programming without requiring a cable subscription. One day, for instance, I could see Time Warner finally giving its HBO unit the go-ahead to start selling a la carte subscriptions to the pay service, at the same rates that it’s charging the cable guys.

The cable guys wouldn’t like it, but they didn’t like when HBO, et al, did the same with the satellite guys in the ’90s. There’s not much they can do about it.

But given that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is the chief proponent of the cable-protecting “TV Everywhere” plan, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

More tomorrow, once Microsoft makes it all official.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111004/microsoft-puts-more-tv-in-your-xbox-as-long-as-you-keep-paying-for-cable/feed/ 0