Apple Orders 'Home' Docuseries Featuring Extraordinary Houses

[LethalWolfe]

Again, you're comparing Apple to oranges. Those are video streaming services, and in some cases simply hardware devices, e.g., Roku, which should be compared against the Apple TV device. AppleMusic is a music streaming service. They are in midst of forming a video streaming service and have hired the folks to help create it, and have begun licensing programming. As, whatever they name their new service, starts to come together later in 2018 and beyond, then it will make sense to compare it with Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, etc.

Apple has been offering movies and TV shows via iTunes for around a decade (including low-key original content every now and again). Of course they should be compared to other companies that do the same thing such as Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.,. It's a Granny Smith to Fuji comparison.

 

[Zwhaler]

Cool? Just buy Netflix already

 

[PickUrPoison]

Apple has been offering movies and TV shows via iTunes for around a decade (including low-key original content every now and again). Of course they should be compared to other companies that do the same thing such as Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.,. It's a Granny Smith to Fuji comparison.

I don’t think Apple will ever be able to offer iTunes content on a monthly subscription basis, the content guys would want too much. How many customers would be willing to pay $200/month for unlimited iTunes streaming? Not enough.

When Apple does offer a subscription video streaming service, whether that’s this year or next, it will be similar to Amazon Prime and Netflix: a mix of licensed, mostly older content along with original content.

If their original content is good enough, people will subscribe. And why shouldn’t it be good? Apple, Amazon and Netflix all source from the same pool (though I suppose development deals will lock certain properties to one streaming service or the other). It’s going to be more about who outbids whom—and Apple’s got deep pockets.

Some may not like it, but Apple is entering the subscription video streaming business. They’ve barely started acquiring original content, but there will be much, much more. Some will like the original content enough to subscribe, some won’t.

 

[69650]

Apple should stick to what they’re good at and forget this TV nonsense.

 

[Malarkey]

SNOOZE. Apple has become as bland and boring as... uh, Tim Cook, Jony Ive, etc. ... rich white guys who are boring as hell and not edgy in the least. MEANWHILE: What the F happened to COMPUTERS, APPLE? That's why I'm learning how to build my own PC....!

 

[plattform]

This is actually a huge deal as someone involved in architecture/design who can’t find a single show on television featuring designers who might be featured in relevant trade publications (architectural record, AD, ID, wallpaper, etc.). HGTV and DIY (Scripps) are mass market and rarely show anything truly high end or aspirational, expensive maybe, but not high design. While this subject probably won’t appeal to most of the high level geek population that reads, let alone comments on a website like this devoted to Mac gossip, but it will appeal to a huge amount of viewers, most importantly a younger demographic building and getting interested in home ownership, as well as the boomer retiree demographic who have a lot of time on their hands lately to watch Apple TV and spend money on home design.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

Like damn man. We've aleady got this covered on HGTV 24/7. Who greenlighted this?

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don’t think Apple will ever be able to offer iTunes content on a monthly subscription basis, the content guys would want too much. How many customers would be willing to pay $200/month for unlimited iTunes streaming? Not enough.

When Apple does offer a subscription video streaming service, whether that’s this year or next, it will be similar to Amazon Prime and Netflix: a mix of licensed, mostly older content along with original content.

If their original content is good enough, people will subscribe. And why shouldn’t it be good? Apple, Amazon and Netflix all source from the same pool (though I suppose development deals will lock certain properties to one streaming service or the other). It’s going to be more about who outbids whom—and Apple’s got deep pockets.

Some may not like it, but Apple is entering the subscription video streaming business. They’ve barely started acquiring original content, but there will be much, much more. Some will like the original content enough to subscribe, some won’t.

What I could see Apple doing is continuing to offer a la carte rentals/purchases of newer content (like current seasons of TV shows) but older content is covered under an all-you-can-eat streaming plan. This is what Amazon does with Prime. Though other services stream new content (ex. Hulu, HBO, CBS, Starz, etc.,) so it seems feasible Apple could stream both current and back catalog content, but that service would probably be in the $18-$20/mo range.

Even if Apple makes compelling original content, people won't just have to subscribe to the Apple service though, they'll also have to buy an TV which is a barrier to entry that you don't have with any of the other services. Apple is very late to the game and facing heavily entrenched competition like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu as well less established players like CBS and HBO (not to mention Disney's new service is going to be a success because of all the mega-franchises it owns) so having to pay an additional $150-200 for another set top box just for Apple originals is going to turn a lot of people off.

Not to mention that I think we are approaching 'streaming fatigue' as cord cutters start realizing that the prices of unbundled content can start adding up quickly.

With all that being said, I agree that it's a matter of 'when' not 'if' Apple gets into this fight. They really have no choice in the same way that they had no choice but to get into streaming music.

 

[Vasilioskn]

Let’s hope these homes don’t have Homekit because Apple has don’t nothing to improve it.

 

[Agustin Cauchy]

Yawn. Another one for the clearance bin.

 

[truthertech]

No. This article is specifically about a tv show. It doesn't matter if Apple puts it under the Apple Music umbrella for now, it's not music.

But Apple hasn't started their video streaming service. All they have done is a couple of test shows. There's nothing to meaningfully compare at this point.
[doublepost=1515221437][/doublepost]

Apple has been offering movies and TV shows via iTunes for around a decade (including low-key original content every now and again). Of course they should be compared to other companies that do the same thing such as Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.,. It's a Granny Smith to Fuji comparison.

Your confusing about the difference between a video streaming service, and a video rental/sales service. To clarify, Apple had the largest and most successful music sales portal in the world, Itunes, but they weren't in the very different music streaming business. That's why they had to buy Beats and create Apple Music in order to get in the music streaming business. Apple has been trying to get in the video streaming business by signing up other content producers, but thus far the others haven't wanted to agree to Apple's terms. So, in order to launch their video streaming service, they decided to spend a billion dollars this year to start assembling their own content. Netflix went through this years ago when they moved from simply a rental service to a streaming service.

In a year or two after Apple kicks off their video streaming service and has had it up and running then it will be a interesting discussion to see how they compare.
[doublepost=1515221590][/doublepost]

Right but this is video. If Apple is going to have 30 original shows only showing on Apple devices (and Android phones), that seems like a missed opportunity.

It's a great question as to whether they will decide to offer it as an inducement to join the Apple ecosystem. I'm betting that they will follow the Apple Music model and offer it cross platform.

 

[macs4nw]

That show sounds "magical"....

And the executives are going to be "thrilled" ...... or maybe not

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The reason for Amazon, Netflix and Hulu's success is their channels are available on every platform. No matter what box you buy or smartTV, you can stream content from all of those places so long as you pay for it.

AppleMusic streaming is not available on Roku, Shield, Google Cast or Amazon Fire, right? Isn't that holding them back?

Potentially holding them back - widespread availability can be very important. However, I don't think that cross-platform availability is the "secret sauce" for any of those programming services. The point of original content, for all of them, has been to give people a reason to choose their service over another service, or add their service to a customer's existing content lineup.

Exclusive content is the lure, cross-platform makes it more likely they'll sign up. Exclusive content is how cable TV's premium networks like HBO and Showtime became must-haves on a cable programming package, and how the old US broadcast radio and TV networks - NBC, CBS, ABC - built their audiences. Deliver must-have content, and the public will follow. The trick, of course, is coming up with must-have content.

Maybe Apple Music is more cross-platform than you think. You can get the Apple Music app for Android, and the iTunes app for Windows. That covers a whole lot of existing hardware. Add Apple's 1 billion devices in current service, and that's a very substantial market. And if Roku, Shield, Google Cast, and Amazon Fire can make money selling Apple Music subscriptions, they'll sell it, just as iTunes sells Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, and Hulu subscriptions.

We're all used to Apple's closed-ecosystem approach, and some may assume that Apple's exclusive media content will follow in that tradition. However, they've already broken with that model. I think in this case Apple will be satisfied with having a money-making brand presence throughout the media-consumption world. Why pay for advertising and product placements when you can have people pay you to view your promos and product placements?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Your confusing about the difference between a video streaming service, and a video rental/sales service.

I'm not confusing them, it's just a difference that doesn't make a difference in the context of this discussion. Apple is already in competition with companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon because all of those companies are in the business of delivering movies/tv shows to customers over the Internet. The fact that they all don't share the exact same business model doesn't mean they aren't in competition. That's like saying Netflix was never in competition with Blockbuster because Netflix had a different business model than Blockbuster.

Maybe Apple Music is more cross-platform than you think. You can get the Apple Music app for Android, and the iTunes app for Windows. That covers a whole lot of existing hardware. Add Apple's 1 billion devices in current service, and that's a very substantial market. And if Roku, Shield, Google Cast, and Amazon Fire can make money selling Apple Music subscriptions, they'll sell it, just as iTunes sells Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, and Hulu subscriptions.

True, though Apple Music and the iTMS aren't available on any set top boxes, video game consoles, smart TVs, BR players, etc.,. Going totally platform agnostic would be a major blow to TV, but making TV a mandatory purchase is going to hurt adoption since all the competition is platform agnostic. Apple's in a pickle on this one.

 

[cyprian.pl]

Starring Home App and the whole HomeKit familly? I've got a lot of material for numerous episodes, mostly about them frustrating other people.

 

[QuarterSwede]

But Apple hasn't started their video streaming service. All they have done is a couple of test shows. There's nothing to meaningfully compare at this point.

I agree that it's hard to make a full comparison but you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is that the shows they're putting out are terrible. Apple has the money to give artists freedom. That's what makes Netflix and Amazon successful. They don't get into the creative process. This just shows Apple does ... or they pick horrible pitches.

 

[mmm1345]

Never understood why people watch stuff like this or MTV Cribbs. It comes across as rich people bragging about how rich they are and their fabulous lives to me.
I used to be all into Robin Leach and Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, The Robb Report, Trump (until I read the art of a deal and found out what a big fraud he is) in my teenage years, until I realized I'll NEVER be that wealthy. I live a great life and earn enough where I can get anything I want (even a Mac Pro - which I'd never get) - within reason and don't feel a need to covet or dream about stuff I'll never be able to afford.
[doublepost=1515256110][/doublepost]

Do tell where you saw this show.

On MTV. It's called MTV Cribbs.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

True, though Apple Music and the iTMS aren't available on any set top boxes, video game consoles, smart TVs, BR players, etc.,. Going totally platform agnostic would be a major blow to TV, but making TV a mandatory purchase is going to hurt adoption since all the competition is platform agnostic. Apple's in a pickle on this one.

Though not currently on set top boxes, video game consoles, smart TVs, BR players, etc., for now Apple Music is almost entirely audio-only - a streaming music service trying to make headway on video platforms doesn't stand much of a chance. How does Spotify do in this arena?

However, the subtext for this article is Apple's continuing expansion into video programming. Apple Music would be pretty poor branding for a video service. We can speculate as to whether it'll be a single service/subscription with a new name, or two separate services/subscriptions, but whatever's going to emerge is likely to be much bigger, revenue-wise, than Apple Music alone, consistent with the history of video entertainment vs. audio.

As to whether Apple would sacrifice revenue from TV hardware sales... I think it's a no-brainer. A $129 set top box that might be replaced once every 3-5 years (if that) vs. a $10-$25 per month subscription that pulls the same revenue in a year or less.

Sure, the same could have been said about iPod, but I'd argue that the MP3 player industry was still in its infancy, while competition from well established set top boxes, smart TVs, etc. is much stiffer. Apple isn't in a position to create a new market segment this time, so there's less leverage.

TV will likely continue, and sales will likely grow, for the same reasons that Apple sells four times as many Macs today as when iPhone was introduced - the power of the ecosystem and the public's wider exposure to the Apple brand. Further, if certain content categories, such as games, remains platform-dependent (iOS/tvOS), then the proposition is, "You can view Apple Video content everywhere, but if you want the extra value/capabilities that come with TV apps, just make a small additional investment in an TV."

 

[truthertech]

I'm not confusing them, it's just a difference that doesn't make a difference in the context of this discussion. Apple is already in competition with companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon because all of those companies are in the business of delivering movies/tv shows to customers over the Internet. The fact that they all don't share the exact same business model doesn't mean they aren't in competition. That's like saying Netflix was never in competition with Blockbuster because Netflix had a different business model than Blockbuster.




The point of the discussion wasn't comparing general competition for delivery of video over the Internet. It was about Apple's nascent efforts to get into the video streaming subscription business; hence the comparisons weren't between Amazon sales and rentals of videos versus iTunes sales and rentals, it was trying to compare Amazon Prime streaming service, along with Hulu's, etc., against Apple Music. At this point, that makes little sense as Apple is just getting started and meaningful comparisons beyond won't be possible for another year or two (heck, no one even knows what Apple is going to call the new service, how they are going to price it, etc.)

[doublepost=1515267861][/doublepost]

I agree that it's hard to make a full comparison but you have to start somewhere and that somewhere is that the shows they're putting out are terrible. Apple has the money to give artists freedom. That's what makes Netflix and Amazon successful. They don't get into the creative process. This just shows Apple does ... or they pick horrible pitches.

The question is how meaningful of a comparison one can make other than there are some streaming services that have been around for several years and Apple hasn't started theirs yet. Apple did two experimental shows, Carpool Karaoke and Planet of the Apps, plus a documentary or two. Whether the data from those, or whether it was their plan all along, convinced them to create a new content group of some of the top people in the industry, that effort is now underway with a billion dollar budget the first year. Once Apple announces how the new streaming service will work, more meaningful comparisons beyond "Apple Music video streaming sucks" (not your comment) can be made.

BTW, Amazon and Netflix are heavily involved in the creative process. They obviously aren't getting involved on the set, etc., but they are using their massive data (that's one reason Netflix is resisting putting it's information through Apple TV app) to identify the content that will be most successful. "Amazon Studios" solicits scripts at its website now and has had over 10K submissions, which it goes through and decides which ones are most likely to succeed and then they go to actual studios, etc., and have them produce.

Carpool Karaoke was very successful concept, but I'm guessing Planet of the Apps wasn't. That's probably what convinced them to go all in with the new content team as they get ready to launch their own video streaming service.

 

[entropys]

Is Jony responsible for choosing their shows now, too? Sounds like a Jony choice.

My thoughts too. Ten episodes each featuring a particular architect, interviewed with a white background of course while he passionately and overemphasisingly wanks on about his design choices for houses paid for by people wanting to make a statement about their their own cultural superiority. Leavened with slow motion cuts to the design aspect, and the occasional interview with the owners struggling to explain why they liked it.

It could be truly excellent satire. Even better if narrated by Jeremy Clarkson.

 

[Rogifan]

Where in that post did you read that I've seen this?

“This is a complete joke. Watching a bunch of rich celebrities parade around their ostentatious & pretentious garbage.”

How do you know this show is going to be about rich celebrities?
[doublepost=1515276497][/doublepost]

On MTV. It's called MTV Cribbs.

And this show is a copy of that in what way? Of course you can’t answer because you haven’t seen it.

 

[jasonv]

LOL dude, there is no cancer research. The little research that was needed is already long done. There's a public list by the WHO of cancerogenous substances and foods. The only question that remains is: "How can one eat an unlimited amount of class A cancerogoneous substances year-in year-out and still not develop cancer?" However, there is no answer to this question. Just don't eat / expose yourself to the stuff. And if you have cancer stop eating it / stop exposing yourself. If you're lucky you will go clear. That's the whole thing about cancer.

So you're telling me that my girlfriend doing Post Doctorate research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York is wasting her time doing cancer research? That the incredible breakthroughs the scientists have done is really going nowhere? Also, the correct term is "carcinogenic", not "cancerogoneous".

 

[NY Guitarist]

Glad to see Apple creating socially conscious content that will enlighten people rather than elevating malignant materialism to hold over the unwashed masses as symbolic of their worthlessness.

 

[jerwin]

Since I'm a bit of a masochist, could they also show all the hot women I won't be sleeping with?

OK.

....The vision board for this particular cinematic experience is “Cribs episode in hell.” You see a woman pleasuring herself while wearing a VR headset. You see a flash of someone’s obvious sexual fantasy about a Son of the Harpy come to life. You see nearly naked women in gold body paint follow the protagonist around the house, writhing seductively on cars and on the roof, but also sitting down for a nice dinner in the spacious living room. (It’s unclear if they’re hanging out or just haunting the house.)...

https://www.thecut.com/2017/05/sexy-movie-trailer-mansion-opus-beverly-hills.html

 

[Peperino]

If APPLE is going to be doing shows like lately has been doing computers, you 'd better don't do anything.