Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jobs Biographer Walter Isaacson Suggests Key TV Content Role for Beats' Jimmy Iovine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You opened up with that statement and it became obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about.
This is so wrong, it is difficult to know where to start. It might as well be with the point that Steve Jobs asked Walter Isaacson to write his biography.
So I'm not allowed to hold the view that there is a ton of content on YouTube that is really good and that the content on TV relative to that content sucks? Go back to your Jersey Shore. Or whatever.
While "worse" -> "worst" is a valid correction, the second set of changes changed a perfectly proper English sentence into verb-tense-soup (although the "that" should have been dropped as it is implied). "I did not understand (past tense) a single thing you said (past tense)" does not forcibly order the two past-tense verbs, but the meaning is clear without forced time ordering. Of course, "said" here is being used as a stand-in for "wrote", and there is an implicit ordering necessary (the sentence was written, then posted, then read, and only at that last step might it have been understood). I'm not a grammar teacher, but I believe the formal ordering would use "had" before "said", not "have" ("I did not understand a single thing you had said").
On the other hand, if you also meant to change the "did not" to "have not" ("I have not understood a single thing you have said.") then your correction has the same timeline-order issue as the original - it is not completely precise, but the meaning is clear enough. I prefer the simpler-tense version as a matter of general principle.
In any case, grammar posts are stupid, this one definitely included. If someone criticizes your grammar, either clarify your meaning, or ignore him. Going to war over whose grammar is better always ends with both parties humiliated and no one communicating. As a point of balance in the universe, it is natural law that any post criticizing or correcting someone's grammar will include at least one grammar mistake itself, often but not always more grievous than the one it intended to correct. Again, this post is definitely included in that natural law, 'cause it is, after all, the law.
Grammar wars are like tic-tac-toe; the only way to win is to not play the game.
[Note, when I say "this post included" above I am talking about this post, the one I am writing, not the one to which I am replying
]
Last edited:
Shouldn't that be "I have not understood (...)"? What's the saying about throwing rocks in the glasshouse?
Yes, I didn't even care if all my corrections were in fact correct. It was easier for me, and rude people, I think, don't deserve such effort.
Thanks for the correction.
Only a half step up from grammar wars, my-content-is-better-than-yours wars.
Personally, I find a lot of excellent content "on TV" (well, streamed online or bought from Apple or bought the next year on DVD sets). I also find some excellent content on YouTube. I wouldn't personally want to restrict myself to just YouTube content, but I can see how some people would find that content more satisfying than what they can find on TV.
But, if all you're going to do is cast aspersions on an entire medium based on its worst content ("Jersey Shore"? How life-affirming and enlightening are cat videos and guy-gets-whacked-in-the-nuts "fail" videos?) there's no point in talking.
Can you point to some good YouTube content? I'm not asking so I can put it down (pshaw! you like that?!?) but because I think that, even more so than broadcast TV, YouTube has a severe discovery problem for me. I'd love to hear what you find great on YouTube, because I might agree (and then I have more good content to watch).
To give a start:
My top "TV" Content totally off the top of my head, so I'm going to miss a bit - Bones (formulaic, but entertaining), Grimm (cheesy, yeah, but entertaining), Walking Dead (although I'm two seasons behind at the moment); Modern Family, The Goldbergs, Arrested Development (came late to that party; still working through the backlog); Daily Show, Colbert, Conan O'Brien.
My top "YouTube" content again off the top of my head - Red Letter Media reviews (totally cheesy "story" bits, but love the reviews) ... ugh, can't think of anything else.
Last edited:
Shameless, Modern Family, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, True Detective, Penny Dreadful, New Girl, The Daily Show, The Americans, The Late Late Show, Louie, The Colbert Report, South Park, Fargo, The Walking Dead.
Just a taste of some great shows from the top of my head that nothing on YouTube can touch. It's not my fault that you think the only thing on TV is Jersey Shore.
Does that group him in with the analysts? Make him worse than the analysts because he thinks he's entitled? Make him better because he has accomplished something Apple-related?
I still don't understand all the hand-wringing over this. I guess it's because so many people feel like Beats headphones don't sound that great and are expensive.
But, both the headphones and the service are profitable. Which means that they will pay for themselves over a period of time. Even if the number of subscribers at the moment is low, they are making money on each one, and when it becomes an Apple property then it is likely that many more people will subscribe, adding more profit with each subscription.
So, headphones that sell for a profit. A music subscription service with sweet transferable agreements that is profitable. Then as a bonus, an incredibly well-connected and influential media mogul that can help clear roadblocks that have hampered Apple for years. It doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. But then again, I'm not getting all emotional about it like some people.
But, both the headphones and the service are profitable. Which means that they will pay for themselves over a period of time. Even if the number of subscribers at the moment is low, they are making money on each one, and when it becomes an Apple property then it is likely that many more people will subscribe, adding more profit with each subscription.
So, headphones that sell for a profit. A music subscription service with sweet transferable agreements that is profitable. Then as a bonus, an incredibly well-connected and influential media mogul that can help clear roadblocks that have hampered Apple for years. It doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. But then again, I'm not getting all emotional about it like some people.
I was wondering the same thing. Clearly the effort to enlist content for whatever TV project Apple is developing, has stalled. The lack of progress might not be entirely on Cue's doorstep though; if it was, he'd be out by now, I expect. I think these hirings by acquisition seem to an acknowledgment that someone (or two) has to take on Steve's role of romancing industry people.
Rapidly slipping into the world that lives, breathes and sells controlled substances, Apple's sure to have a big hit on it's hands with the iHip-Hop Phone. Compete with heavy gold chains to match, it's a look only Apple could bring to that demographic...
So, your analysis is that Apple is really doing this to get access to Dr. Dre? Got it.
I realize that this is a "Rumors" site, but please oh please, stop feeding this BS-beast.
Or, if that's too hard to do, how about giving equal time to the rumor that this whole Apple-Beats rumor was ginned up by Iovine himself in order to make his company more attractive to someone else.
As such, it is brilliant. He can be sure that the thing that would most quickly kill the rumor, a clear, unambiguous denial from Apple, is exceedingly unlikely happen, because Apple doesn't take the bait. On the other hand he can count on Apple's silence to feed speculation, because people know Apple will never comment on an ongoing negotiation. Moreover, while unlikely that Apple would actually buy Beats, it is at least plausible given the music/entertainment/audio hardware connection. Finally, it is about Apple, and he can be sure that people will gobble up Apple "news," however implausible.
It is clearly working, thousands of bloggers and journalists are taking the rumor and running with it, packing on more and more BS with every post. Thousands more are echoing what they read elsewhere. I would assume that it is also influencing the ultimate target of this misinformation campaign, because, lets face it, there are very few companies that aren't going to feel inferior compared to Apple. Apple is likely confident that it doesn't need Beats, Iovine and Dr Dre to be cool, but pretty much everyone else is going to be insecure...Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Sony, Intel...
Or, if that's too hard to do, how about giving equal time to the rumor that this whole Apple-Beats rumor was ginned up by Iovine himself in order to make his company more attractive to someone else.
As such, it is brilliant. He can be sure that the thing that would most quickly kill the rumor, a clear, unambiguous denial from Apple, is exceedingly unlikely happen, because Apple doesn't take the bait. On the other hand he can count on Apple's silence to feed speculation, because people know Apple will never comment on an ongoing negotiation. Moreover, while unlikely that Apple would actually buy Beats, it is at least plausible given the music/entertainment/audio hardware connection. Finally, it is about Apple, and he can be sure that people will gobble up Apple "news," however implausible.
It is clearly working, thousands of bloggers and journalists are taking the rumor and running with it, packing on more and more BS with every post. Thousands more are echoing what they read elsewhere. I would assume that it is also influencing the ultimate target of this misinformation campaign, because, lets face it, there are very few companies that aren't going to feel inferior compared to Apple. Apple is likely confident that it doesn't need Beats, Iovine and Dr Dre to be cool, but pretty much everyone else is going to be insecure...Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Sony, Intel...
I've been wondering if this isn't a reverse acquisition similar in a similar vain to the NeXT acquisition. Thinking in this case Beats has acquired iTunes. Let the music and entertainment content move out from the Apple brand. Which would free it to chase customers on both other platforms but also to chase product like a label might without risk of stepping on toe's of Apple Corp settlement.
Give iTunes a much needed reboot and strip out all the additional iPod/iPhone sync functions which could move to iCloud.Let the content be king again.
My 2 pennies guess (because I don't know much about it to be honest), I think Apple is looking for content. Even if Netflix is now producing unique and good content (House of Cards, Orange is the new Black, Arrested Development), they still don't "own" all other content they're streaming...
Being able to have iTunes as a direct "Music Label", as a "Movie Studio", or as a "Broadcast Channel"... it would maybe turn it as a new kind of "TV".
I don't know the deal TV Shows producers get with broadcast channel, but "what if" (it's a huge what if) Apple would allow an easier and more profitable solution to produce and distribute content we can only find on iTunes TV? (pretty much just like Netflix does now).
Most of the time, it cost between $2 and $3M to produce a TV Show episode (from what I read). So if Apple owns the content, they can easily distribute all over the world (and not have limitation like we know right now with different rights for distribution for each countries). By doing so, it could be way easier to have enough "customer" that will buy an episode. (it could just be 2 or 3 millions people worldwide with a $0.99 per episode... or more depending the distribution deal they could do).
With hundreds of millions of iOS and iTunes users (one clic away to purchase it), they could have a better business model to propose to content creators. Apple is probably trying to create a new business model for TV, starting from the beginning: the content creator for new content and not necessary the TV Channels that owns the current content.
Most of the time, some TV Shows get cancelled because of the schedule time (because each TV Channels want to have more ratings than the other they always put good TV Shows at the same time). But on a Netflix/iTunes base system, nobody cares about time... you just watch it when you want. Therefor, it will just be a matter of number of purchase download (or views if it's streamed with some kind of iAds).
So, it could make sense to have some guy (or team) that actually knows how to manage content creators. And maybe this is just the top of the iceberg...
But again, I don't know anything about TV... beside watching TV Shows, Documentaries and Movies
My 2¢