Apple Inks Deal for 'Large Budget, Ambitious' Sci-Fi Series From Simon Kinberg, Known for 'X-Men' Movies

[EdT]

This is only my personal opinion based on my own likes and dislikes: From the list of movies he’s done about 1/3 I liked, 1/3 I didn’t, and the final 1/3 were ok but if I never saw or thought about them again it wouldn’t bother me.

Long way of saying this guy is not going to either stop me or cause me to use Apple Streaming.

 

[oldwatery]

I’m so tired of all you shareholders bleating on about making profits over everything else. You know life is more than just money. And a great company does not have to make more money to appease its greedy shareholders at the expense of selling their soul. I just wish Apple would sell off its computer division and let us real Mac lovers get on with our lives and work. And by the way this is not a Mac rumors site it’s An Apple love fest site. Very different animals.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Apple should stick with the what made them famous, making computers, better than anyone else.

As much as I wish they'd stop entering new markets with half-baked products I'm also coming to terms that maybe they don't know how to make robust and innovative Macs and software like they used to. Maybe they lost that ability with the leadership change and we just have to suck it up and accept the new Apple isn't the old Apple.

 

[Nuvi]

I always hear about how Apple has a new deal for so many shows over the last year, but besides MacRumours, I never hear about these shows again.

Where are the shows even shown?

Developing a show (drama) takes a long time. Two years is quick and four nothing out of ordinary. However, what’s strange is that Apple is already talking about them. Many and I mean MANY shows are cancelled in development. There are even few that have gone to production and cancelled during the shooting. So, it looks like Apple really wants original shows and is willing to talk about them even in early development.

 

[wigby]

Heh, I mentioned a long time ago, if Apple had to do this just go all sci-fi. I probably couldn't resist then. But then the cheerleaders chimed in about something that people have different tastes. Doesn't matter. In this space, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades and pleasing everyone, you carve your niche. Sci-fi would fit Apple like a glove.

How is sci-fi niche? The top 48 grossing films of all time in the U.S. are all sci-fi.

 

[Nuvi]

Apple should stick with the what made them famous, making computers, better than anyone else.

The problem with media content ventures is that they are Apple ventures. Apple should create a media subsidiary which is separated from main business.

The separation of businesses would allow media content to be created to fully serve the intended audience without worrying about Apple brand strategy.

 

[MacPeach]

Don’t understand why apple is in general interested to do any movies and series... they shall go for Hardware and Software in best Standards and good privacy

 

[vegetassj4]

Well take that with a grain of salt. He also worked on most of the other X-Men movies including Logan and Days of Future Past which are arguably the best of them.

Whew...OK, thanks.

 

[BlueParadox]

Speaking of Jumper, they really need to revisit that series and hopefully, turn it (and the sequels Reflex, Impulse and Exo) into a TV show.

Do you know about the TV series of IMPULSE, which Google/YouTube released last year? It’s pretty good, though it’s a very loose adaptation of the Steven Gould novel. It’s quite dark, with a great deal of mystery to keep one going from episode to episode.

I’m a big fan of the ‘JUMPER’ series by Gould. The first two books in the series are excellent, in my opinion. I quite liked the movie adaptation of ‘JUMPER’ back in 2008, but after I read the book I wished they had stuck closer to the novel as it had some great scenes and ideas that didn’t make the film (and David teleporting himself near the end of the film version when he was stuck to the house kinda defeated the set-up of what took place in the second book, had they used the second book as a source).

I’d love to see a complete reboot in the form a TV miniseries of the first two books. For now YouTube is making season 2 of ‘IMPULSE’...

 

[iRutherford]

Do you know about the TV series of IMPULSE, which Google/YouTube released last year? It’s pretty good, though it’s a very loose adaptation of the Steven Gould novel. It’s quite dark, with a great deal of mystery to keep one going from episode to episode.

I’m a big fan of the ‘JUMPER’ series by Gould. The first two books in the series are excellent, in my opinion. I quite liked the movie adaptation of ‘JUMPER’ back in 2008, but after I read the book I wished they had stuck closer to the novel as it had some great scenes and ideas that didn’t make the film (and David teleporting himself near the end of the film version when he was stuck to the house kinda defeated the set-up of what took place in the second book, had they used the second book as a source).

I’d love to see a complete reboot in the form a TV miniseries of the first two books. For now YouTube is making season 2 of ‘IMPULSE’...

I don't follow anything outside of Netflix, Amazon Video and Hulu as far as streaming go, so I wasn't aware of YouTube Red's content. I'll watch the trailers later and see if it's for me.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I’m so tired of all you shareholders bleating on about making profits over everything else. You know life is more than just money. And a great company does not have to make more money to appease its greedy shareholders at the expense of selling their soul. I just wish Apple would sell off its computer division and let us real Mac lovers get on with our lives and work. And by the way this is not a Mac rumors site it’s An Apple love fest site. Very different animals.

Just as I get tired of teenagers whining when Apple moves in a direction they don't care about instead of releasing whatever variation of their favorite device. Apple can't remain what it just once was. If that means that healthcare for example is Apple's new thing the shareholders will still follow Apple while all the "give me an updated SE" people have long since abandoned Apple.

Also you act as if all shareholders have some shared vision of how Apple is going to screw you, take all your money and avoid making you happy. It's a rather simplified and ignorant view of who shareholders are and what they expect.

 

[lunarworks]

Just as I get tired of teenagers whining when Apple moves in a direction they don't care about instead of releasing whatever variation of their favorite device. Apple can't remain what it just once was. If that means that healthcare for example is Apple's new thing the shareholders will still follow Apple while all the "give me an updated SE" people have long since abandoned Apple.

Also you act as if all shareholders have some shared vision of how Apple is going to screw you, take all your money and avoid making you happy. It's a rather simplified and ignorant view of who shareholders are and what they expect.

I don't think it's teenagers doing most of the whining. I'm fairly certain it's people in their 30s and 40s.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Love sci-fi. There can't be enough, provided it's good. Glad Apple is getting lots of it. Just hope it isn't G rated.

 

[AlumaMac]

If that means that healthcare for example is Apple's new thing the shareholders will still follow Apple while all the "give me an updated SE" people have long since abandoned Apple.

Unless they don't deliver the returns you want. Then you'll abandon them as well.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Unless they don't deliver the returns you want. Then you'll abandon them as well.

Well so far I am still here and I am underwater. I will only sell if I think the company has no future. Without these kinds of deals that is what it would be like. As far as cashing out of course at some point I want to retire.

 

[dan110]

Mark my words ... these foolish expeditions into Hollywood territory will find the same ending as Ping.

 

[ipedro]

This feels like the moment in time that in five years, we will point to AAPL and say this is where the company strayed at a moment they needed to refocus on their core business.

What’s their core business? Macs? Macintosh has never reached a marketshare that could bring them the kind of wealth they’ve experienced as “The iPhone Company”.

So, right now the iPhone is their core business.

The obvious, in plain sight thing that people seem to miss is that Apple has always sold their hardware by producing content for it. The whole stack as Steve Jobs used to say. For the Mac, that meant producing the software that people consumed on the device. iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, Pages, Numbers... There’s other software that runs on Mac of course, but Apple provided the essentials built with the same ease of use and attention to detail that people love about the hardware. It’s what sold Macs.

Now, we’re in a smartphone and tablet era. What’s consumed the most on these devices? Video. Who owns that market now? Netflix. They get to dictate how their app works, how it looks and even where people have to go to pay for it. Netflix makes Apple virtually no money even though it’s run on their devices. What’s worse is that Netflix can run on anything; it doesn’t sell Apple hardware.

You can say, of course it doesn’t make Apple any money, it’s not an Apple company. Exactly. Netflix owes Apple nothing and that’s a dangerous recipe for a field that is going to dominate more and more what people use smartphones and tablets for. Netflix isn’t going to sell Apple hardware so Apple needs to produce content that will. Apple can’t afford to stay on the sidelines.

So yes, Apple is focusing on their core business.

 

[Gasu E.]

Well so far I am still here and I am underwater. I will only sell if I think the company has no future. Without these kinds of deals that is what it would be like. As far as cashing out of course at some point I want to retire.

I hope that buying Apple shares in 2018 was not a key component of your retirement strategy.

 

[Defthand]

Yeah, that would have worked out really well for them if they had never made the iPod or the iPhone.

Apple has always evolved. It’s in their DNA and it’s critical to their survival.

It's important to adapt, but not always necessary to expand or diversify. A company doesn't have to achieve Apple's size or scope in order to thrive. In fact, Apple's size could ultimately be its curse.

The iPod and iPhone were undoubtedly significant, but would they have been as successful without the Macs and Macbooks that defined the DNA and completed the experience? Probably not. The iPod was dependent on iTunes. More importantly, its appeal was its embodiment of the MacOS's stylings and usability. When HP was conned into re-branding the iPod as their own, the result was different.

Imagine if Apple had not existed prior to the iPhone. Imagine it was a well-funded start up. Even if it managed to deliver the same product in 2008, I doubt it would have achieved the same success. It would lack the same ecosystem conveniences as many Android brands.

Finally, imagine if Apple had never pursued the iPod or iPhone. Would they have survived? I believe so. Without those products to inspire copycats and peripheral services, the need for consumer PC's wouldn't have declined so much. And although Apple would not have won over as many Windows PC users as quickly, it was on its way.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I hope that buying Apple shares in 2018 was not a key component of your retirement strategy.

Not at all.

Assuming the stock recovers to its three-month-ago high of 233, the stock being in the 150s will have been nothing but a tremendous gift of a buying opportunity. Look into “dollar cost averaging” if you don’t already understand it.

Holding timeframes need to be at least 5-10 years out when you’re investing in equities with retirement funds. Short term pullbacks are only bad if you panic and sell out—thus locking in your loss.

Of course if you think the stock is done for and won’t recover, sure sell it. Sometimes it’s smart to go ahead and realize a capital loss; for instance to offset capital gains, or to invest in an alternative with a better outlook. But personally, there’s nothing I’d rather buy (and hold) right now than Apple at 150.

 

[ntlman]

Can someone explain what Apple’s role here is besides being a piggy bank? Besides they have a crap ton of money they need to find something to do with so decided to spend some of it on content? Is their anything we’re learning about this endeavor that indicates it will be differentiated from Amazon, Netflix, HBO etc.? Seems to me there’s a limit to the number of subscriptions people will chose and if they already have Netflix are they going to fork over another $15/mo for Apple’s service?

I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more discussion around does it even make sense for Apple to become a media company (and no reselling content available elsewhere doesn’t make one a media company). It’s just assumed because Cook is pushing this “services” narrative that this makes sense but I’m not convinced.

Another great post, dude.

I mentioned it before on another thread, but I agree: people are fickle and there's nothing special Apple can do to make their movie/tv productions any more well produced or popular than another media giant's content. Amazon had a show this past fall with JULIA ROBERTS... that no one watched. And they've been producing shows longer than Apple has.
[doublepost=1547784074][/doublepost]

...people are smart enough to turn these off during busy times (turning off Netflix when school season starts) and turn them back on (April when HBO has new shows).

The difference between HBO and Netflix (at least, before AT&T acquired Time Warner), is that HBO actually is profitable (they still are, although AT&T is now swamped in debt), while Netflix is famously not. They owe $8 billion, and have already stated that they will be in the black -$3B at the end of 2019... for the 2nd year in a row. If large amounts of young people turn off the service during the school year, they are in big trouble (not to mention losing all the Disney/WB/HBO/NBC content in the next year or so).

 

[ipponrg]

Not at all.

Assuming the stock recovers to its three-month-ago high of 233, the stock being in the 150s will have been nothing but a tremendous gift of a buying opportunity. Look into “dollar cost averaging” if you don’t already understand it.

Holding timeframes need to be at least 5-10 years out when you’re investing in equities with retirement funds. Short term pullbacks are only bad if you panic and sell out—thus locking in your loss.

Of course if you think the stock is done for and won’t recover, sure sell it. Sometimes it’s smart to go ahead and realize a capital loss; for instance to offset capital gains, or to invest in an alternative with a better outlook. But personally, there’s nothing I’d rather buy (and hold) right now than Apple at 150.

Let's look at it from another angle, and one that people should also be considering when getting into stocks.

Assuming the stock doesn't recover and borders up/down around 150s to 170s for the next 5-10 years, what does that mean? What if it turns into a Blackberry?

If you have spare change to play, Apple is a decent buy. I'm actually eyeing more on MSFT as I've made much more historically on MSFT than AAPL long term. I don't consider AAPL a "safe" long term stock. Apple historically has one of the more volatile movements in the markets which makes it enticing for short term holds and buybacks.

 

[ntlman]

Apple has a limited future in health devices, which is why they are only committing to surface level monitoring in the Apple Watch. FDA approval is a very long and complicated process. There can be unexpected delays and if they don't approve your product, your timeline for product release is screwed. For example: if the government unexpectedly shuts down, your product review will stop.

 

[ipponrg]

Another great post, dude.

I mentioned it before on another thread, but I agree: people are fickle and there's nothing special Apple can do to make their movie/tv productions any more well produced or popular than another media giant's content. Amazon had a show this past fall with JULIA ROBERTS... that no one watched. And they've been producing shows longer than Apple has.
[doublepost=1547784074][/doublepost]

The difference between HBO and Netflix (at least, before AT&T acquired Time Warner), is that HBO actually is profitable (they still are, although AT&T is now swamped in debt), while Netflix is famously not. They owe $8 billion, and have already stated that they will be in the black -$3B at the end of 2019... for the 2nd year in a row. If large amounts of young people turn off the service during the school year, they are in big trouble (not to mention losing all the Disney/WB/HBO/NBC content in the next year or so).

Netflix will be in an interesting space when that happens. Content is king so we'll see what happens then.

I think Apple is trying to replicate the buzz that you see on typical Hollywood sites that certain directors/actors are working on some random project. It certainly attracts people that follow those directors/actors, but as a whole it's not a certainty that the project will be successful as time has proven. I'd argue there has been more BUSTS than successes.

On a side note, I haven't heard anything about Julia Roberts in Hollywood the last few years in major mainstream shows/movies. She's definitely not a favorable actress at the moment for Gen XYZ.

 

[ntlman]

Netflix will be in an interesting space when that happens. Content is king so we'll see what happens then.

Netflix is just a giant shopping mall with big box stores propping up a lot of niche, unsustainable small stores. How many people keep driving out to shopping malls that lost their big box stores?

I think Apple is trying to replicate the buzz that you see on typical Hollywood sites that certain directors/actors are working on some random project. It certainly attracts people that follow those directors/actors, but as a whole it's not a certainty that the project will be successful as time has proven. I'd argue there has been more BUSTS than successes.

That's for sure. Almost every artist-friendly movie studio ever founded failed (look up the origins of United Artists and The Directors Company) because big names don't always guarantee box office success. And vanity record labels have done even worse.

On a side note, I haven't heard anything about Julia Roberts in Hollywood the last few years in major mainstream shows/movies. She's definitely not a favorable actress at the moment for Gen XYZ.

She's definitely been working at a much slower pace since she won her Oscar almost 20 years ago, but she's still an A-lister when it comes to media attention. She did a full run of the major talk shows, the show (created by the creator of Mr. Robot, a current hit) got positive reviews from major media outlets, and was promoted to every single person who used Amazon this past fall. And still... meh.