Apple Eyes Lease at The Culver Studios, Bidding on Drama Starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon

[HobeSoundDarryl]

First, no one gave or gives a **** about Tidal. It's a "me too" clown show. Beats had enormous brand credibility. Also, Tidal (launched October 2014, bought by Jay-Z January 2015) didn't exist when Apple bought Beats (August 2014), which would have made that choice a slight bit more difficult.

Sure, the Apple brand had/has similar demographic appeal, which was all the more reason to buy Beats. Ever heard of "brand synergy"?

And again, Tidal didn't exist when Apple bought Beats. You could argue Jay-Z buying Tidal was a reaction to Dr. Dre getting a big fat cheque from Apple.

Also, who is on the Spotify team? I can't say I've ever heard one person working there named.

Why are you still so upset about Apple buying Beats? It's been nothing but a positive.

I'm not upset about Apple buying Beats. Why are you so passionately trying to rationalize it?

If Apple had bought ANYONE else, that entity that might also equate to "no one gave or gives a **** about" would likely be the one you are rationalizing now if someone like me was questioning it and offering up- say- Beats as an alternative. That's how this always works.

I bet I know more about brand strategy and marketing than you do.

As to the "fame" of company members, I grant you I can't name anyone that is high up at Spotify. Is that important? Back when iPod was coming to life, I couldn't name anyone running businesses that contributed to iPod. I couldn't name anyone running iTunes when it was an acquisition. Siri? Other than Jobs himself, Next? Emagic? Nothing Real? Proximity? P.A. Semi? LaLa? Quattro? Intrinsity? Placebase? Poly9? C3? Authentec? Etc (run the list). But if the heads of such companies being famous names is crucial to success, I guess Apple was just wrong about up to ALL of those and others. P.A. Semi? Why in the world did they buy that? (rhetorical, I do know why, and I could easily argue that was a FAR, FAR more valuable and important acquisition than Beats for headphones, subscription music software and 2-3 music industry notables... plus "brand synergy."

If you step back to where I offered up Beats as an example of Apple buying others for lucrative profits, it was in support of why they may be messing around with the subject of this thread. Someone posted that this studio is about a LOT of reality television and why would Apple want that? Because reality television is very, very profitable... you know, like Beats hardware.

 

[lunarworks]

I'm not upset about Apple buying Beats. Why are you so passionately trying to rationalize it?

If Apple had bought ANYONE else, that entity that might also equate to "no one gave or gives a **** about" would likely be the one you are rationalizing now if someone like me was questioning it and offering up- say- Beats as an alternative. That's how this always works.

I bet I know more about brand strategy and marketing than you do.

As to the "fame" of company members, I grant you I can't name anyone that is high up at Spotify. Is that important? Back when iPod was coming to life, I couldn't name anyone running businesses that contributed to iPod. I couldn't name anyone running iTunes when it was an acquisition. Siri? Other than Jobs himself, Next? Emagic? Nothing Real? Proximity? P.A. Semi? LaLa? Quattro? Intrinsity? Placebase? Poly9? C3? Authentec? Etc (run the list). But if the heads of such companies being famous names is crucial to success, I guess Apple was just wrong about up to ALL of those and others. P.A. Semi? Why in the world did they buy that? (rhetorical, I do know why, and I could easily argue that was a FAR, FAR more valuable and important acquisition than Beats for headphones, subscription music software and 2-3 music industry notables... plus "brand synergy."

If you step back to where I offered up Beats as an example of Apple buying others for lucrative profits, it was in support of why they may be messing around with the subject of this thread. Someone posted that this studio is about a LOT of reality television and why would Apple want that? Because reality television is very, very profitable... you know, like Beats hardware.

It's a well known fact that "I bet I know more about this than you" is by far the best way to back up one's argument. LOL.

Also, all those other acquisitions your named were for technology. I wouldn't expect someone with deep connections in the entertainment industry to work at a company that designs microprocessors.

 

[nexusrule]

only 16% of US households have a 4K TV set. (Last year it was 7%). So, it's still too new to have a huge impact on sales. I'm not planning to get a 4K set until there is actually a lot of content. There's relatively nothing now.

http://advanced-television.com/2017/05/26/16-us-households-own-a-4k-uhd-tv/

These people, people with high income or enthusiasts, are also the people that spend more money on content though.
[doublepost=1504294583][/doublepost]

If apple is fighting for a piece of the content pie. Why start with a bunch of crappy reality channel stuff?

Even the iPhone started with the crappy Motorola phone. It's how Apple always operated.
[doublepost=1504294767][/doublepost]

This just dilutes the brand.

Tim is lost in space and has stars in his eyes. He is like the son who gets an inheritance and blows it.

Seems to me that people forgot that Steve Jobs made two products in more than 30 years of attempts that had a huge commercially success. The iPod and the iPhone. And both came in the late stage of his career. And it also failed a lot.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also, all those other acquisitions your named were for technology. I wouldn't expect someone with deep connections in the entertainment industry to work at a company that designs microprocessors.

Oh brother. Who does Dre and Iovine work for now?

 

[Tech198]

That's right Apple. Move closer to Hollywood, so you can strike a 'better' deal with them with TV show bundle...

"Perhaps if Hollywood knew we are in a studio ourselves, we may have a better chance"

Then again.. i may have totally lost my marbles

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Curious... wasn't the iPod (the mp3 player with the physical scroll wheel, as opposed to the iPod Touch that some people now call "iPod" for shorthand) a precursor to that? Even though the iPhone is apple's defining product, I recall the iPod also put them on the map, not to mention made them lots of money.

Yes, indeed. And I noted the iPod. Obviously without the iPod there would be no iPhone, no iTunes Music Store. The first iPod was launched in fall of 2000. It didn't really gain traction until 2002 when the Windows version came out simply because the Mac universe was so tiny. Obviously the iPod gave new life to Apple -- really invented it as a CE company rather than a computer company -- and it's stock value did rise 10 fold between the launch of the first iPod and the launch of the iPhone. But it was the iPhone that really brought in the $ for Apple and when AAPL started going bonkers.

 

[lunarworks]

Oh brother. Who does Dre and Iovine work for now?

A company that designs microprocessors and runs a worldwide 24 hour a day radio station on top of a music streaming service.

Can't say I ever listened to PA Semi Radio.

 

[oldmacs]

Or you know they could update the Mac Mini, iPad Mini, MacBook Air and make iOS 11 run as well as iOS 10.

 

[SoggyCheese]

Sounds like a bad idea for Apple to buy this property since the SJW's may want to burn the place down.

They're not buying it, they're just taking space within it. TCS is a productive and profitable studio space. My guess is they're setting up there to poach staff from the other side of the rainbow.

 

[jeffe]

I already pay for NetFlix so I am not sure I want Apple to outbid them. I'd be happy to just watch it on Netflix. Apple entering the game is just another service to pay and keep up with. What's the benefit to the consumer?

 

[fermat-au]

Why does Apple need to produce content? They are turning into Sony (i.e. in the 90s) and they are losing focus. Jack of all trades, master of none.

I agree with you on one level but in many ways Sony of the '90s is fundamentally different from today's Apple. Each Sony division was/is run separately. You didn't need a Sony TV to watch a Sony Pictures film. Sony camera's were sold to many different productions companies. Sony were like Samsung today, many parallel loosely integrated parts. Sony did try to use leverage in one area to promote another to some extent. The PlayStation was a Blu-Ray player (a format promoted by Sony) and I think Sony movies may not have been available on the competing HD-DVD standard. Apple on the other hand seem to be creating content for exclusive consumption on Apple produced hardware - still Apple's major revenue source. Content is about locking uses in to the Apple ecosystem.

 

[richman555]

Im surprised it has taken Apple this long to get into creating its own content.

They have the Apple TV to help deliver it (along with iPads and iPhones).

 

[Queen6]

Movies and TV shows, television sets, cars...Apple, how about fixing your software issues first before doing everything but be a computer company.

Apple ceased being a computer company some years back, hence the current status of the Mac and the desktop OS, nor is it likely to get any better. Apple is all about phones & services...

Q-6

 

[shpankey]

only 16% of US households have a 4K TV set. (Last year it was 7%). So, it's still too new to have a huge impact on sales. I'm not planning to get a 4K set until there is actually a lot of content. There's relatively nothing now.

http://advanced-television.com/2017/05/26/16-us-households-own-a-4k-uhd-tv/

Of those 16%, I bet the vast majority are streaming households.

Metrics mean nothing without context

 

[rowspaxe]

I think apple looks at the itunes ecosystem possibly being destroyed by netflix and streaming. Apple,Netflix and Amazon become the new "networks". Theatrical film release goes the way of the magazine and bookstore.

 

[bart4u]

Not a big Jennifer Aniston fan. Just not my cut of tea as a good actress. Just my opinion. I am sure others will disagree with me. That being said I do like the Culver Studios I have worked there a few times and I love the history of that old studio and I heard rumors a while back they were going to tear it down. Its a smaller place to work than a large studio. I like the charm of the old and I hope they keep it that way if Apple moves in.


Apple is reportedly seeking to move its original content division to an iconic California studio where movies like Gone With The Wind and The Matrix were shot, in order to serve as a base for its big push into Hollywood production.

According to the Financial Times, Apple is interested in leasing space at The Culver Studios, which was built by silent movie pioneer Thomas Ince and counts RKO, Howard Hughes and Cecil B DeMille among its former owners. The studio is close to Sony Pictures' studio lot in Culver City, as well as Beats, the audio group Apple bought two years ago.

Image via Wikipedia​

Apple and The Culver Studios declined to comment on the report, but the move makes sense given that Apple recently set aside $1 billion to acquire and produce original television content over the next year to compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

That budget is said to be controlled by Hollywood veterans Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg, who were hired by Apple in June from Sony to oversee content acquisition and video strategy. Apple also recently hired former WGN America President Matt Cherniss to oversee development of the company's worldwide video unit. Erlicht and Van Amberg oversaw the production of hit shows like Breaking Bad and The Crown, while Cherniss previously worked with the two to bring the Sony shows Underground and Outsiders to WGN.

One of the first acquisitions Apple is said to be vying for is a "high-profile drama" starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, set on a morning TV chat show, according to FT. The company is reportedly bidding against Netflix and others for rights to the drama, according to people familiar with the discussions, indicating that Apple is looking to procure premium productions similar to those found on HBO.

At the same time, Apple is struggling to catch up with its rivals in the original content space and is still looking to get at least one hit under its belt, with recent video efforts "Planet of the Apps" and "Carpool Karaoke" released on Apple Music generally failing to excite audiences. Meanwhile, the company's Apple TV set top box has lost market share to rivals like Roku, Amazon's Fire TV, and Google's Chromecast due to its high price and lack of 4K content.

Despite challenges, the scale of Apple's new budget and hiring efforts are said to be making some in Hollywood believe that this time the company is more committed to breaking into the film and TV industry. Apple is also rumored to be releasing a new Apple TV with support for 4K content and HDR video output at its upcoming media event on September 12.

Article Link: Apple Eyes Lease at The Culver Studios, Bidding on Drama Starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon[/QUOTE]

Apple is reportedly seeking to move its original content division to an iconic California studio where movies like Gone With The Wind and The Matrix were shot, in order to serve as a base for its big push into Hollywood production.

According to the Financial Times, Apple is interested in leasing space at The Culver Studios, which was built by silent movie pioneer Thomas Ince and counts RKO, Howard Hughes and Cecil B DeMille among its former owners. The studio is close to Sony Pictures' studio lot in Culver City, as well as Beats, the audio group Apple bought two years ago.

Image via Wikipedia​

Apple and The Culver Studios declined to comment on the report, but the move makes sense given that Apple recently set aside $1 billion to acquire and produce original television content over the next year to compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

That budget is said to be controlled by Hollywood veterans Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg, who were hired by Apple in June from Sony to oversee content acquisition and video strategy. Apple also recently hired former WGN America President Matt Cherniss to oversee development of the company's worldwide video unit. Erlicht and Van Amberg oversaw the production of hit shows like Breaking Bad and The Crown, while Cherniss previously worked with the two to bring the Sony shows Underground and Outsiders to WGN.

One of the first acquisitions Apple is said to be vying for is a "high-profile drama" starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, set on a morning TV chat show, according to FT. The company is reportedly bidding against Netflix and others for rights to the drama, according to people familiar with the discussions, indicating that Apple is looking to procure premium productions similar to those found on HBO.

At the same time, Apple is struggling to catch up with its rivals in the original content space and is still looking to get at least one hit under its belt, with recent video efforts "Planet of the Apps" and "Carpool Karaoke" released on Apple Music generally failing to excite audiences. Meanwhile, the company's Apple TV set top box has lost market share to rivals like Roku, Amazon's Fire TV, and Google's Chromecast due to its high price and lack of 4K content.

Despite challenges, the scale of Apple's new budget and hiring efforts are said to be making some in Hollywood believe that this time the company is more committed to breaking into the film and TV industry. Apple is also rumored to be releasing a new Apple TV with support for 4K content and HDR video output at its upcoming media event on September 12.

Article Link: Apple Eyes Lease at The Culver Studios, Bidding on Drama Starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon

 

[ChrisCW11]

Even if that new Jennifer Aniston movie is amazballs, it won't make me what to buy into a service called "Apple Music and whatever other **** we decide to throw into that stupid naive brand name. TM".