Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Bringing a Billion Dollar Checkbook To Hollywood and Wants To Buy 10 TV Shows (recode.net)
Apple is officially open for business in Hollywood. From a report: The company is telling content makers it wants to spend $1 billion on its own stuff over the next year. That's music to studios' ears, and a tune they have been expecting for some time -- especially after Apple hired two top Sony TV executives in June. We still don't know what Apple wants to do with that content: The Wall Street Journal says Apple wants to make up to 10 "Game of Thrones" -- or "House of Cards"-scale shows, but that's not enough to launch a full-scale subscription service.
good luck apple
1/6th Netflix content Budget
1/4th Amazon content Budget
I can't wait to view more quality content like Planet of the Apps on my approved Apple iDevices!
You got deep pockets. Just do it.
Apple makes things for it's own walled garden. It's like if Ford cars could only use Ford gasoline. Or Lexmark printers could only . . . oh, nevermind.
Other content platforms, like Netflix, make their content as widely available as possible, not as narrowly available. As an example, I can get Netflix on RoKu, TiVo, as an Android app. Apple users can probably get Netflix within the walled garden. Similarly, I can get Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO, Starz, YouTube, etc on multiple devices.
It's why I avoid Apple products. If I buy some brand of Android smartphone, I know it will work with everything I own. If I buy a Vizio TV, or a RoKu, I know it will work with everything I own. Including Linux. I can run a DLNA server, and a RoKu can play videos from it. Etc.
Apple hoarding TV shows and imprisoning them within its prison camp, er, . . . um, its walled garden, means that most people won't get to see those shows.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
TV is about to get a lot more annoying with different distribution methods, storefronts, DRM, apps with different interfaces and different feature sets, perhaps tiered functionality/ads, and who knows if each service is coming to your preferred device(s). Oh and different subscriptions with different rates.
Not sure how my grandparents or even parents will understand this, not sure I'm ready for this BS. Seems like a sure call for piracy to make another round. I might just stick to buying seasons of shows on discount, don't care if they're low res on DVD at this point if it's easier than the imminent tangled mess.
Or you know just quit watching TV and read books.
Twinstiq, game news
Actually, my thought is -- if Apple could put together 10 really good TV series, it's certainly "enough for a full scale subscription service" (contrary to the story summary)!
Think about it. Right now, you have people maintaining premium Showtime or HBO subscriptions just for ONE series they really want to watch. Everything else is really just "filler" that doesn't motivate them to keep the subscription. (Look how many subscriptions were only kept when new episodes of shows like The Sopranos were airing.)
Apple has plenty of money to be able to afford to license a lot of cheaper "miscellaneous content" that ensures their channel is constantly airing something. But a collection of original shows it could slowly release, interspersed with all of that? That would definitely keep people subscribing.
Really? You have a big issue with Apple Maps only being accessible via Apple devices? I never even gave that a thought until you mentioned it, just now. Considering all the options like Waze, Google Maps, MapQuest, or even MapsFly, it's not like APPLE Maps would offer something original that you'd really want to get in mapping, but can't get, right?
I assume Apple wanted to invest in its own mapping solution for "internal" use with its own devices because it's a good financial investment for them in the long run. It's that simple. Apple is interested in developing something having to do with self-driving vehicles in coming years, and that's going to require map data. Why pay millions or billions to a competitor for it?
Now they can start losing money like Netflix!
love is just extroverted narcissism
1. Caprica - it was a SciFi show spun off from the recreated Battlestar Galactica. The show started out very strong with great ratings, but it got a little sluggish in the middle of the only season and it lost a huge amount of viewership. It finished on an incredible high note and was very good after the sluggish middle. It's been "too many years" to pick up where it left off, however based on the "coming next season" previews for the next season that never happened there's plenty of footage that some sort of time-gap filler could be created to explain some aging.
2. Stargate Universe - It was better than it go credit for, but was sort of a knock-off of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica in presentation. The show was intentionally ended in a way where it could be picked up after a gap. Sure many of the actors have moved on, but that can be woven into the story telling.
3. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles - canceled because it was too high-brow for the killer robot audience. It was incredibly good. Considering the time travel device being used throughout aging is all part of the game, easy to bring back.
There's a lot of other Sci-Fi shows I thought were ended prematurely or would like to have back (First Wave, Dollhouse, Firefly)
Special Mention: Invasion America, an incredibly good mini-series that wasn't finished. Spielberg was involved. Simply dig up the original scripts and as much of the cast as you can - it was a cartoon series so it can easily be resumed and it was murdered by the network tinkering with the scheduling. Nimoy of course would have to be replaced, but as a cartoon series it can easily be done.
One I would like to see re-imagined/rebooted: Earth Final Conflict - the original started out strong, but the cast began to desert the series, starting with the original main character and going on from there. Reboot it with stronger contracts in place. It got sort of silly trying to cover for the cast changes on occasion, but it had the bones of a good show - I would like to see a do-over on this one.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
And in a few years, you'll be sick of hearing how Apple revolutionnized modern TV by inventing the whole streaming concept.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Maybe. CBS is trying with one show: Star Trek Discovery
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
And I remember when they used work hard on usability when the iPhone was easy to use one-handed. When each new major version of iOS didn't mean new steps to accomplish the same tasks (for example when marking something done from the lock screen takes an extra step with iOS10). I've done a few rants on here about how Apple has kept making things worse. They really need to get a visionary back in charge instead of a business person.
So just like any other for profit compsmy then. Ikm not trying to be snarky here, but beond the fashnable apple hate (here at slashdor anyway) what is your point? i might be dim as I can’t seem to find it,
Disclosure: I am a logtime sattisfied Apple costumer, beond that I nor anuone of my famely/relatives has any othe involment with apple, so I don’t have any conflicts if interest in this matter
> There are none so blind to technology as the blind apple worshiper.
What? Not even supporters of the Great Orange Jackass?
Maybe American homes don't need high speed internet? Let's redefine broadband to mean 512 Kbps!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Let's say they put them on iTunes and expect to simply sell them. $1 Billion between ten series at $100 million each. Each one a 13 episode season at $3 per episode or $30 per show. Assuming that the 30% iTunes store cost does go to maintenance costs (or at least not the Apple department that does movies), they'd need around 5,000,000 buyers to break even. Even thought that's over the entire span of hosting the movie, it seems like a lot.
Articles from last January, when this information was released seemed to indicate much less quality than one would expect for that many buyers, and that this would be associated with their music service rather than iTunes store. With their money they could probably get some of the movies that studios won't rent to Netflix, or perhaps the exact same ones as the studios might be hoping to damage Netflix.