If Apple is having issues with content, why not buy networks or cable company?

[Nautilus007]

Apple has no shortage of cash, this may be a simple answer but if so forgive my ignorance. Why wouldn't apple just buy one of theses cable companies with the hundreds of billions of dollars it has and then they have access to programming without negotiations.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Well for one, I don't think that is useful for other companies who wish to use that network. You really want Apple to be in control of one network only to find out that you're stuck with Apple for life? Where is the opportunity for choice?

 

[Dulcimer]

Apple is a technology company—specifically focused on consumer electronics. They don't have the know-how to manage it, nor would they want to.

Same thing with carriers. Jobs said in response to a question that they wouldn't become a carrier because they don't know that business and there are already companies who do it well. Also, like the carrier example, it doesn't provide Apple any worldwide benefit for customers outside of the US.

 

[roadbloc]

What if the cable company wasn't for sale? I don't think many are.

 

[pdjudd]

Apple is a technology company—specifically focused on consumer electronics. They don't have the know-how to manage it, nor would they want to.

Same thing with carriers. Jobs said in response to a question that they wouldn't become a carrier because they don't know that business and there are already companies who do it well. Also, like the carrier example, it doesn't provide Apple any worldwide benefit for customers outside of the US.

Not only that, Apple needs to be as neutral as possible for content negotiation. Buying the content rights outright is a big waste of money and is not something they have experience doing. But doing so also might make other content partners nervous about doing future business with what amounts to being a competitor of theirs. Content owners don’t have much of a choice with companies like Comcast that are content owners and distributors, but with digital distribution is another story and content owners might not feel as comfortable.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Being the middle man is also significantly less risky than being the one that pays directly for the content to be made. Apple isn't a record label, a video game studio, nor a TV network. They are quite content providing a virtual store front and taking their 30% off the top.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple has no shortage of cash, this may be a simple answer but if so forgive my ignorance. Why wouldn't apple just buy one of theses cable companies with the hundreds of billions of dollars it has and then they have access to programming without negotiations.

Doesn't solve the problem of how people access and pay for content. Cord cutters don't want a monthly cable bill where they're paying for channels they never watch.

 

[pdjudd]

Really, owning the content just changes where money goes to when purchases are made - minus the costs of maintaining and operating said content. Why would Apple buy something like that?

 

[Michael CM1]

If Apple were to buy a cable/satellite provider, it would still have the same problem. I'm pretty sure the contracts between, say, DirecTV and ESPN states the content can be distributed over the satellites to customers with dishes and to people using the Watch ESPN app who also subscribe. There is likely nothing in that contract allowing standalone Apple TV subscriptions, so Apple would still have to convince ESPN to do that.

Also, you can't just up and buy any company. That company has to agree to be bought.