Without Steve Jobs, the complete lack of direction, vision and focus is starting to show in lots of areas.
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.
Apple Acquires Rights to Two Films: Documentary 'The Elephant Queen' and Animated Cartoon 'Wolfwalkers'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Without Steve Jobs, the complete lack of direction, vision and focus is starting to show in lots of areas.
Yea, I can't watch most documentaries featuring elephants anymore. Knowing how intelligent they are and that they love to end those documentaries in tragedy. Really any documentary focusing on one animal like following the life of a wolf pup. You know how it's going to end.
Really, I don't like watching any documentary where they go into gory detail of animals killing each other. Yes, lions kill wildebeests. That's life. I'm not interested in watching it struggle in vain for 10 minutes or killer whales playing volleyball with a seal. I don't mind when they show predators at their peak doing a quick surgical strike. Even worse are documentaries which follow an injured animal for days or weeks as it slowly starves to death or succumbs to its injuries. What kind of sick person can do that?
I prefer to stick with documentaries which focus on the life cycle and habits of animals. Informative non-emotional pieces.
Indeed.
If wildlife film makers decided to make a show about humans, all they would do it film us eating something, having sex and going to the toilet.
It's why I don't watch those shows as it's just justification for some sick people to enjoy seeing something get killed under the "It's just nature" get out statement.
Yes, dumb ass, we know lions kill things for food, as do many many other animals, but do we always need to shown that whenever making a film about them?
I'm curious. What makes you think "great art" is a part of Apple's goal with this new service? Certainly can't be anything they've done thus far in this endeavor. One could easily argue that everything they've done has been about mainstream content. It's the smart play. If everything we heard is true, Apple is going to offer a streaming service. That service will succeed or fail based on the number of mainstream customers it attracts. Apple is trying to create a new revenue stream, not the second coming of Masterpiece Theater. It's a nice, high-minded ideal - making great art. Pretty sure that ain't Apple's goal here. An addition revenue stream? You betcha.
Sadly Apple's lack of leadership has had tremendous spillover costs. I think when viewed in a historical context it will be quite damning. Under Cook's leadership Apple went in the direction of moving the industry towards throw-away devices at the time when processor speeds and storage costs would have enable far greater lifetime use. The costs of this are quite notable with respect to huge increases in mining and CO2 emissions. These spillover costs are not weighed adequately notably in the "shareholder value" equation hence real tough corporate leadership was needed to recognize them. Some guy posted a very good page about how Apple's $1T valuation came partially through failed cables, keyboard, batteries, etc. It was a bit of hyperbole, but is still symbolic of what Tim & Co. has wrought. Everyone will argue it's what consumers want, how Apple's stock price has multiplied, etc. But the fact remains, imho, that Apple at the time of Steve's passing was is a position to affect how consumers and shareholders think. Rather than spend a historic ~$1Tillion buying back stock, boosting share price, making Warren and Tim exceedingly rich (the former simply moreso), they could have devised ways to extend the life of products, diminished the affects of the mining and transportation needed to support a new avalanche of products every calendar year. Who knows what was perhaps one of the most innovative companies could have created had they taken the more difficult path, the one less traveled if you will.
Meh....Does anyone seriously give a poop? If so, get a life! Apple TV has and will remain useless and pathetic. My Gen 3 Apple TV has been collecting dust on a shelf for years while my Roku and Fire TV units get used rather often. As far as books, I bought one iBook years ago just to see what is was like, but the few hundred eBooks I've bought have come from Amazon because Amazon understood how to build a real digital bookstore while Apple just piddled on itself. I love my iPhones, iPads, and Macs, but Apple really doesn't understand TV, books, music, or much else about services, so I don't use any of their services, ever....
It's Sunday morning. Please take your trolling elsewhere until at least noon.
[doublepost=1536508752][/doublepost]It's amazing that how many posters have no idea how the media industry works. Apple is already a major player in the video streaming business --it's called iTunes, and they bring in BILLIONS in revenue from movies and TV shows. It's all about money. There's nothing unique about any of the major players. Netflix, Amazon, Google, Sony, etc., and now Apple are all DOING EXACTLY THE SAME TWO THINGs--
1) They license video content that has already been produced. Most content isn't worth paying for exclusivity, that's why most content is available from all the streaming services. Some content is deemed worth having an exclusive license, such as the elephant documentary in this article. That's what Netflix did with one of their first big hits: House of Cards. Netflix didn't even have the international rights to distribute House of Cards.
2) They go out and hire producers and directors to create "original" content directly for them. Again, they are all doing the exact same thing with the exact same talent pool that they are bidding against each other for. They are all deep pockets with the exception of Netflix who is the most vulnerable going forward as they are uniquely poorly positioned in the bidding war as they are facing fastly rising costs with limited ability to raise subscription costs, which is their only source of income in contrast to Apple, Amazon and Google, and now Disney.
People don't realize that Apple is already ahead of where Netflix was. Five years ago, Netflix had less than a dozen "original content" shows and now they have over a thousand. It's silly to suggest that Apple won't be a major player. In creating this new Video Streaming Service they have hired some of the top people in the industry from Sony, Amazon, etc., with proven records for bringing forth great shows such as Breaking Bad.
Yes I think they need to start with mainstream content to bring in the subscribers and then work on the arty/niche genres if that’s what they want to do.
I’m sure those choices are good films but at first glance it doesn’t seem commercial enough to me.
I love the Netflix and amazon original content and I hope Apple are able to do similar in addition to licensing the usual programming from the major studios
This. So much this.
When I was in high school, PBS had "Mechanical Universe," which taught basic physics and calculus, using animated graphics to develop the equations. It was absolutely stellar.
You can still watch it on Caltech's YouTube channel.
I kinda feel bad for anyone who signs an exclusive deal with Apple. So far their track record has not been good when it comes to Apple backed/exclusive content. I'd want to make darn sure I had an escape clause to pull back my content if/when things don't work out.
iTunes is just a TVOD service though. It's not really the same as the other SVOD services.
Breaking Bad is a really good show, but you are forgetting that Apple's brand identity is similar to Disney in that they are very careful on what type of content they will have on their platform.
In order for Apple to be a major player for several reasons, I think they have to address the following:
1. They are not ubiquitous in streaming. Will they have the right content and an app to start to allow people to consume on a Roku, Android, or a SmartTV platform? There are some significant technical challenges that they will encounter when it comes to integrating with 3rd party platforms.
2. Hiring "top people in the industry" is never a guarantee. If anything, it creates buzz. The audience cares more about the content itself and less about who is producing.
3. Will Apple's identity get in the way of them procuring/producing content that people would be interested in? Their track record thus far hasn't been adequate.
Apple would need to buy AT&T to get WB or DC Universe since AT&T bought Time Warner, Inc.
Let's see, content with substance ... nah, few will watch it (Apple, what are you thinking?). Apple needs to find some zombies and reality TV. /s I really shouldn't comment, though, since I don't watch TV at all and take in fewer than half a dozen movies a year. People behaving badly is about all there is in the media, these days.
I hope MR is not going to post every time Apple buys some film
Gotta fill the void.
This Apple streaming service is an exercise in hubris. It will fail. They need to stick to making hardware and selling it a premium.
That is Apple though. They don’t start big. Do something right and build on it slowly. However I’m on board with none of the above. None of this is good for Apple. They don’t need it.
Last edited:
It was up for grabs as many others. Apple did nothing. I’d rather Apple keep doing nothing to be honest as this isn’t their wheelhouse. It seems they’re pressured to bring in additional revenue streams and there’s no Jobs to figure out innovative ways.
Netflix and others need as many screens possible. They’re on every platform. Apple wants this just for them? It’s already going to struggle. Is anyone willing to pay the Apple tax for the garbage they’ve already signed? Not me.
I did buy DC because it includes more than video. And I don’t usually do that. Even Netflix is starting to lose its appeal with me. I’m not really sure what Apple could offer to get me to bite. None of their signings interest me.
This will all end badly for Apple is it's not their core competency. They should be partnering with Netflix to make that service the most awesomeness of goodness possible. Most people only have time for one video streaming service and it isn't the one starting with the letter 'A'.
LOL. "Track record." They've only had two shows, one of which, Carpool Karaoke has been a hit and was renewed for a second season. Their music videos have been enormously successful, such that Spotify has tried to copy it and the major music labels have gotten concerned.
Keep on telling that to yourself.
[doublepost=1536558806][/doublepost]
OITNB is a terrible show. Total stinker.
Yes and there isn't a moat around it, just like there isn't one around Amazon Video, or Netflix. And it doesn't scale globally. For the same amount of money, they could have invested into Gaming, making a Game console. 75% of their App Store revenue are already from gaming. PC Gaming and Console Gaming are still growing rapidly. If they want a 30% cut to increase their services revenue, gaming is an much better option than TV.
Glass backsides while there are 1000s of better materials -
Mediocre battery life - depleting the planet’s lithium reserve despite all the bla about conserving the planet.
Coal, oil and gasheated stores in the EU despite being 100% green.
Mostly white males on the board despite diversity claims.
Duh...Cookette business.
LOL. You are calling for Apple to "stick to making hardware" when their services revenue is by itself now one of the Fortune 100 companies bringing in over $60 BILLION dollars a year. You can't make this stuff up folks.
Last edited:
They wouldn’t have services without the hardware. Anyone can pipe in music and video. That is all cloud based.What matters is the eco-system. Keep up.