In a digital age when entertainment and publishing industries are loosing relevance, are Apple, Netflix and Amazon really acting as saviors to these industries? Or is it just a perception?
I think this is an interesting to topic to discuss and would like to hear your thoughts.
Some background:
1.) Apple launched iPod in 2001, at at time where music industry is rocked by more than its own beats. iPod + iTunes proved to be a successful business model and Apple successfully get the buy in of the entire music industry into this model. It is now attempting the same with movies. There is still work to do, but it seems that most movie studios will give in to this as well.
2.) News papers such New york times, WSJ and magazines such as Time are all jumping onto iPhone and other smartphone platforms.
3.) Amazon launched Kindle with a promise of transitioning publishers to the digital age
4.) Netflix is getting the buy in of movie studios to deliver their content through its websites and it predicts by 2030 streaming will be ubiquitous and will replace any physical medium
Given this, I wonder whether they really are saviors to these industries or are they adding an extra layer, and stealing profits, to an otherwise direct business between these industries and its customers?
For me in some cases they seem to be the saviors, i.e. music industry, but I question the role of these companies in saving say, publishing industry. Thoughts?
This is an interesting topic Sudhi. Rather than seeing these companies as saviors, I see them as having the resources and foresight to predict/respond to market conditions. While these are the companies that we all identify as changing the game for music, publishing, etc., I don't think they really created new segments. For example, Apple didn't bring music files online; they responded to an already active and vibrant online community that was swapping music well before 2001. Their contribution was figuring out to corral and monetize it. Not a small feat--it's hard to convince people to pay for a service they've been using for free--but smart business rather than salvation. Similarly, as more people went online to find information, the market demanded that news be available where they were. Digital books follow the same trend - consumers are quickly becoming used to accessibility and portability. Kindle just makes sense in that environment. I see the shift to online or app versions of more traditional media as a natural evolution, i.e.,not stealing profits or revolutionizing anything, but the next step as technology advances and the market comes to expect media to keep up.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the word savior is to much. However they are part of the market transformation. Customers are just different and will continue to change rapidly, I believe that these companies will dominate the scenario in 20 years more when the children that today have 4 are Young professionals and don't know any other way to have access to entertainment or books. For example my 4 year old daughter doesn't know what are the cassettes (old magnetic tape that used to transport music) and of course she just believes that to go from A to B you need a GPS not a paper map. Those are the future clients of kindle, apple and netflix. So I would say that the revolution is on its way it started 10 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the responses. Great thoughts. I would like to push back a little.
ReplyDeleteTwo points I would like to clarify to focus the discussion a little are:
1.) I understand and agree that these companies have the capability to disrupt and innovate and that they are doing the right thing and exploring new territories.
2.) The savior is an argument in the media itself, many people argue that these are the saviors.
Given that, I am trying to figure out whether they are causing a collateral damage to these industries (a damage without intent)? These are the industries which lived an independent life, but now there is a third party in the middle. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? In the long term?