https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/business/media/apple-tv-plus-price.html

On September 11th, Apple CEO Tim Cook recently debuted the lineup of the company’s most anticipated service, Apple TV Plus. The announcement comes in the middle of the sudden streaming wave where it seems as if every major studio or media entity is joining in on the most popular way to watch content. 

The headline of the story was when Cook publicized the price of the streaming service. For only $5 a month, Apple TV Plus will offer a variety of shows, movies, and more in order to compete with its competitors. 

So why such a low price? 

The main reason is it will have a lower supply of content. 

Services like Hulu, Netflix, or even the newly announced Disney+ contain massive libraries of original series, new releases, and decades of vintage programming. In effect, Apple TV Plus will offer roughly a dozen original shows at a low price to attract new viewers and subscribers. Cook claims that the service will have “the best movies, comedies, dramas and kids’ shows.” At the same time, Cook hopes that the quality of the content is a way to keep its viewership and compete with already established competitors. 

Over time, it will be interesting to see how Apple TV Plus’ content is critically received. The company has invested over one billion dollars in its newly established entertainment division, where Hollywood veterans such as Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, Reese Witherspoon and J. J. Abrams have been involved. However, the names attached are not guarantees to bring Apple long term success. In this case, I find Apple’s decision to set its price point so low to be a strong marketing tactic. This gives viewers a safe bet at trying something new with the hope of finding content they may enjoy. For competing services, perhaps if Apple TV Plus produces, companies with limited original content like Hulu or Amazon Prime may have to reconfigure their own creative division.  It is the level of intrigue that Apple has in its advantage at the moment, and it will certainly be interesting to see just how big the entity can grow. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/technology/microsoft-brad-smith.html

In the midst of all the topics surrounding data usage and antitrust claims against big conglomerates such as Amazon, Google, and YouTube, there seems to be one big tech company that has avoided a majority of government backlash today–Microsoft. 

Although the company is no stranger to facing substantial fines due to its own antitrust claims, Microsoft has found a defensive approach in order to revolutionize its external affairs becoming a leading advocate in public policy matters and ethical settlements aligned with the government. 

Microsoft has restructured its external strategy by becoming less of a consumer company through market shifts and a newly defined business plan. For instance, the company has rallied behind the protection of consumer privacy and ordered for more legitimate sanctions in regards to artificial intelligence. Unlike companies today, Microsoft attributes its corporate personality change by not becoming reliant upon online advertising and storing personal data–a headline we are all too familiar with in the current media landscape. The President of Microsoft, Brad Smith, claims that, “when your technology changes the world, you bear a responsibility to help address the world that you have helped create.” The company still undergoes business selling ads but instead compromises with the views of its competitors and policymakers, making a case for bringing tech sectors and government together. 

Smith has since marshaled support for the Paris Call for international norms of behavior on the internet and for the Christchurch Call to curb terrorist and extremist content online. These initiatives are without restrictive law, however, Mr. Smith claims they could start global conversations that shape global policy.

Smith notes how the mentality behind the leaders in tech today is to continue to fight, because that is how they made it out to be successful in the first place. However, the more ethical approach is compromise– to reach out and be proactive in confrontational disputes. Microsoft’s has framed a fundamental model all tech companies should follow. To advocate for change in a productive way and make meaningful decisions that positively impact technology and the consumer. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/technology/india-restaurants-logout-delivery-zomato.html?ref=oembed

The digital age we live in functions to serve at one’s greatest convenience. This extent has most recently gone as far as mobile delivery apps taking the restaurant industry by storm. Uber Eats, Postmates, and Grubhub are popular United States media companies that enable an awareness for a brand and also functions as a cost effective option to the average customer. Most recently, the discounted rates and promotional offerings through these apps have negatively affected many restaurants financial stability.  

While consumers may feel as if their easy access to take-out food is of benefit, what many don’t realize is the amount of commission these apps are taking away from the business. The #Logout campaign is a movement created by the National Restaurant Association of India, where over 1,200 restaurants across the country pulled out of online food tech platforms, claiming how significant discounts hurt their businesses. 

Aakanksha Porwal, the owner of a diner called Vahnilla & Company, stated that Zomato (an Indian delivery service) users who pay $14 for a year of buy-one-get-one-free dining at 6,000 restaurants has cost her about 20 percent of the company’s revenue. And Vahnilla pays Zomato 28 percent on every order that is delivered. To put in perspective how this translates to U.S companies, restaurants such as Uber Eats and Grubhub charge companies up 15 to 30 percent in fees for each order customers place through their platform. 

The recent campaign thousands of Indian restaurants have supported has persuaded Zomato to limit its discounted rates and invest in alternative options to keep its subscribers satisfied. While these efforts may provide some minimal stability in the meantime, the long-term effect of these delivery apps foreshadow an unclear future for the restaurant industry globally.

I have never used a third party delivery service so I was fascinated to learn more about how these apps can benefit, or in fact hurt a business. The information provided by the article certainly demonstrates how effective media companies can be in any capacity. Just as we have most notably seen how streaming services are causing some to cut the cord with cable eventually the restaurant business may not be too far off.