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 May Develop Original TV Shows Exclusively for iTunes and Streaming TV Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will be the thinnest and lightest television show ever made!
[doublepost=1454095692][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1454095692][/doublepost]
Please no.
If Apples taste of film resembles their taste of music this will end badly. Also Apple would make itself a competitor of all other content creators, unlikely. And last but not least "accessible on the web" from Apple? Get real.
Last edited:
I think it would be a great start to incorporate an Amazon Prime video app.
I would love an Apple streaming service. But ONLY if it has all the content from the iTunes store AND the content is universal.
I know, it's your personal view, but why?
Are you against streaming as a whole? Otherwise why kill the best streaming device/service on the market? Would you rather give your money to Amazon, one of the most terrible companies in the tech industry, or your personal info to advertisers through Google?
Finally Apple is stepping into streaming like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon prime now if only they could stream the library iTunes has and merge it with Apple Music Just like Amazon Prime music and movies are both part of the package for the same Prime price than Apple has finally stepped up their game.
The biggest change to Apple that Steve Jobs made after coming back was getting rid of the crap and bloat. If this headline comes true, this would be the start of the end.
There's that word again "innovate"
The closet thing "interactive" we have now would be your cable box, or Foxtel. where in sports u can hear the commentary only.
If Apple's only game is to close the door on striking deals and making their own content to keep users happy, then i'll be really disappointed..
The closet thing "interactive" we have now would be your cable box, or Foxtel. where in sports u can hear the commentary only.
If Apple's only game is to close the door on striking deals and making their own content to keep users happy, then i'll be really disappointed..
"The Life of Tim"
[doublepost=1454100278][/doublepost]If Apple was really serious about it then they could sell Beats and buy exclusive rights to Game of Thrones, a bunch of other good series and hire JJ Abrams to produce a couple of Star Wars-scale movies exclusively for the Apple TV. And start a new great franchise.
[doublepost=1454100278][/doublepost]If Apple was really serious about it then they could sell Beats and buy exclusive rights to Game of Thrones, a bunch of other good series and hire JJ Abrams to produce a couple of Star Wars-scale movies exclusively for the Apple TV. And start a new great franchise.
I'll give you the iTunes Music Store argument, but all of the cellular technology that they had to learn to launch the iPhone was a little more complicated than just jazzing up an iPod.
Why doesn't Apple let Artists & Actors submit their work to iTunes directly the way you can with apps? Cut the middle man out for good. The App Store model revolutionized the industry and I believe the same can be applied to other iTunes content.
Or you could simply not buy an AppleTV and allow the rest of us to enjoy ours?
[doublepost=1454102702][/doublepost]
I think eventually this will happen. One step at a time.
Thank you SO much for sharing your personal taste in television. This will save the rest of us wasting lots of time watching shows you wouldn't enjoy.
I think Apple (and Google, Amazon) are different. They are, by nature, streaming studios, and why not make more content on their own? HBO started just presenting movies that were just out of the theater, and only later did they do "original programming". But Apple is a platform, as Google Tv and Fire TV are platforms. When the producers start going to tech companies, for production funds, it's okay; MLB knows streaming; they've proven that by running the HBO Now streaming service. HBO can maintain itself over the future with the shift towards streaming by offering subscriptions. I can't take CBS streaming seriously, except as a de facto DVR offering the past seasons, etc., or last night's show. I think what streaming does is strengthen the case for broadband for all, and weaken the tripartite gyp of the cables: slow-speed internet, useless phone (for most) and a ridiculous set of tiers for canned programming that actually, very few people want. In ten years, it will be a swamp of reality TV for the mentally indigent. I think that Antenna TV in the US will come back very strong, with the new broadcast standard of ATSC 3.0 promising the syncing of streaming data AND 4K broadcast. We now have 125 or so channels in LA. If each broadcaster has 2 UHD channels and two HD, and other national programmers enter in too, that makes 40 or so channels of high quality-- that can carry multiple audio tracks and an almost infinite number of good subtitles in all the languages locally spoken. It becomes financially interesting to advertisers again. If it's run on the digital platforms with the original advertising, then the CBS app, for instance, could remain free. So the future, I think, just won't be recognizable in terms of content. And down with the cable constipation.
[doublepost=1454104250][/doublepost]
What does Netflix know? They hired people and put out the word they had money, and voila! They can handle the streaming.
[doublepost=1454104250][/doublepost]
What does Netflix know? They hired people and put out the word they had money, and voila! They can handle the streaming.
One word "Pixar"
[doublepost=1454105695][/doublepost]
Think of Pixar, or have you forgotten Steve Jobs owned that too at one stage.
A LOT of really good content is not being made simple be cause of a lack of money.
Apple does not manufacture hardware, they get 3rd parties to do that, it will be the same deal, they will buy the rights to quality content.
There was no way any of the mobile phone makers would have played ball with Apple, so they went their own way, they know nothing about mobile phones but now they may know the most. It will be the same with content, they will be able to attract the right talent if the choose to.
NO! There would be a review process, and maybe some requirements. It takes substantial coding skill to make most apps on the App Store, and your app isn't guaranteed to get accepted. Maybe some type of a certification can also be required, plus a fee for keeping your account open, etc...
Imagine an app store where only big companies made apps (like EA, Microsoft), and in house apps from Apple. I doubt that would have been very successful.
One problem though: Eddie Cue is involved. The biggest moron to ever work at Apple.
Yep, Apple created media cannot be any worse than what's on the big 3 networks. I am looking forward to the option. Hopefully they bring in someone that gets it to run it.
[doublepost=1454106844][/doublepost]
Thats the problem, 'ecosystem". I understand it for phones because of the network. But for TVs, I don't get it and I don't want it. If it hooks to my TV then it has to be usable for what I want to use it for, not an advertising device for Apple, or Google, or ?
The problem is that your severely underestimating the scale, money, and resources that go into producing television. What you're suggesting would be much more suitable for indie work.
All comes down to content, if the content meets your preferences, and value it is for you. I like Amazon and Netflix but not HBO. Good to have more choices and competition that may change the intrenched cable model. Wish Apple all the best if they choose to go down this path.
I don't see how that makes things better. If I have to pay for Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu Plus, and Apple Video to get to watch everything, my bill is as high as it would be for cable. Right now I only have Netflix and I'd prefer everything be available through one service so it's only one payment.