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 Orders 'Home' Docuseries Featuring Extraordinary Houses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Going off topic slightly but...
I watched about 4 seasons of Grand Designs back to back recently. With this level of intense viewing you soon realise that it fast became a show for architects/interior designers (particularly new ones) to try and advertise themselves on. Either that or people with huge piles of cash that they want to throw about in order to look impressive and then sell the property for at a massive profit. I spent (too long) time researching and a great many "forever homes" were soon sold for mega £££'s not all that long after the show was aired.
The very best episode I think is one is one of the early ones where they didn't even own the property, the council did. They had very little money and did virtually all the work themselves, maintaining as much of the original features as possible - the fireplace was astonishing.
Possibly more of a property ladder episode than Grand Design, but nonetheless, amazing and well worth 55mins of your time.
Wait...is this why autocorrect has been capitalizing the word "home" every time I type it since the last software update?
I don't need to see it. The premise is old, stale and not at all interesting to ME.
Last edited:
So you’d rather have Apple’s programming be virtue signaling? Who wants to watch that?
[doublepost=1515332485][/doublepost]
Now here is a valid argument against this rumored show. How is it going to be different than what’s already on HGTV and DIY.
The rumor says it will showcase the “world's most extraordinary homes”. Since when does extraordinary just mean rich celebrities?
What I always wanted was slower pans across rooms. IIRC, Cribs had some room shots and fast cuts like music videos. But as a person interested in home design and decor, I really want a nice static shot of a room for a while to take it in. Not fast pans or sped up shots. Even the current HGTV 1/2 hour shows I always feel like I want to see the finished house A LOT more. So that the Apple show is 1 hour is a good sign.
Everything about Apple content just seems so uninspired and pedestrian. Even if they turn out to be amazingly entertainment, I need a crazy smart digital platform, not more channels. And how does Apple expect to invent the future in content? AR? I just don’t get it, except as a way to make money, which I guess it will be.
I don't watch enough television to know whether this is comparatively compelling programming, but it seems like the one principle that Apple television development is most determined to hew to is: don't do anything risky. In a cable environment where there are literally hundreds of new shows a year, this is a guaranteed way to fall into obscurity and thereby fail.
Another 'reality' real estate show. How unique. I hope it shows couples deciding between 3 homes, with each partner wanting something diametrically opposite to what the other wants, and with a dramatic pause- and usually a commercial- right after asking which house they picked. This would be so ground breaking.
Seriously, its been done. Many, many, many times already. It's been done well, done poorly, done too often, done with good hosts, done with mediocre host and done with really bad hosts. Find something else. ANYTHING else.
Seriously, its been done. Many, many, many times already. It's been done well, done poorly, done too often, done with good hosts, done with mediocre host and done with really bad hosts. Find something else. ANYTHING else.
Spotify is available on Roku, PS4, Xbox One, Chrome Cast, Amazon Fire, and various blu-ray players and smartTVs. Pandora is similarly ubiquitous. These aren't just video platforms, they are home entertainment hubs and Apple isn't ready to concede the living room hardware war just yet by letting their music and video services interface with these types of third party devices.
Apple's been delivering movies and TV shows to living room TVs via the Internet since 2007 and used to be the market leader. Ignoring Apple's previous decade in this business is like ignoring the iTMS entirely and pretending that Apple Music is the first time Apple got into the music distribution business.
If every single one of the houses they profile doesn't have HomeKit features from front door to attic fan Apple is truly out of control. (No pun).
All their latest computers have been bad.What?
New Macbook Pro- A complete disaster
iMac Pro (cannot update RAM or HD in a 5K computer) same old 7 year design.
iMac- Design was never upgraded. only internal components.
Mac mini- dead in limbo, never upgraded.
Mac PRO another failure that took them 8 years to realize that was a complete disaster?? seriously?
Apple's been delivering movies and TV shows to living room TVs via the Internet since 2007 and used to be the market leader. Ignoring Apple's previous decade in this business is like ignoring the iTMS entirely and pretending that Apple Music is the first time Apple got into the music distribution business.[/QUOTE]
It would be silly to compare iTunes with Apple Music if you want to compare music streaming subscription services, one is and one isn't. It's equally meaningless, at this time, to compare Apple Music with Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and Netflix, etc., if one wants to compare video streaming subscription services, since Apple Music is not a video streaming subscription service. It may become one in the future; though more likely is that Apple will create an entire new structure when they are ready with the video content they are assembling.
It would be silly to compare iTunes with Apple Music if you want to compare music streaming subscription services, one is and one isn't. It's equally meaningless, at this time, to compare Apple Music with Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and Netflix, etc., if one wants to compare video streaming subscription services, since Apple Music is not a video streaming subscription service. It may become one in the future; though more likely is that Apple will create an entire new structure when they are ready with the video content they are assembling.
Last edited:
I'm talking about the business of delivering movies and TV shows to consumer's living rooms via the Internet and Apple started doing that in 2007. Why is that "silly" to talk about? In terms of making Internet delivery of movies and TV shows living room TVs easy and accessible Apple was first to market, but now they are being forced to play catch up because hardware, software and consumer expectations have changed. For example,
TV's are largely redundant thanks to the Internet of Things, there are many companies delivering content via the Internet these days (some as all-you-can-eater streamers, others via the sales/rental model), and consumers are now expecting great original content, so just providing a similar catalog of movies/TV shows as everyone else doesn't cut the mustard anymore.You are splitting hairs with Apple, yet you lump Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, etc., together even though those services aren't exactly the same either. All these companies are competing in the same space, even if they are doing it in slightly different ways.
For example:
Netflix is an ad-free, subscription only service that primarily offers back catalog movies/TV shows and original first party content.
Apple mainly sells/rents digital downloads of new and old movies and TV shows (and presumably will be releasing a full streaming service w/original content in the not to distant future and possibly a 'skinny bundle' TV service as well).
Amazon Prime Video functions similar to Netflix, but Amazon also has Amazon Video (not Prime) that sells and rents content just like Apple does.
Hulu has both ad-free and ad-supported plans, primarily offers current TV shows from the three media companies that own it, and is creating its own original first party content.
CBS All Access is similar to Hulu, but it only has content from CBS.
The two most similar services are CBS All Access and Hulu, and if we added HBO NOW to the list that would probably be the most similar to Netflix.
I'm talking about the business of delivering movies and TV shows to consumer's living rooms via the Internet and Apple started doing that in 2007. Why is that "silly" to talk about? In terms of making Internet delivery of movies and TV shows living room TVs easy and accessible Apple was first to market, but now they are being forced to play catch up because hardware, software and consumer expectations have changed. For example,
You are splitting hairs with Apple, yet you lump Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, etc., together even though those services aren't exactly the same either. All these companies are competing in the same space, even if they are doing it in slightly different ways.
For example:
Netflix is an ad-free, subscription only service that primarily offers back catalog movies/TV shows and original first party content.
Apple mainly sells/rents digital downloads of new and old movies and TV shows (and presumably will be releasing a full streaming service w/original content in the not to distant future and possibly a 'skinny bundle' TV service as well).
Amazon Prime Video functions similar to Netflix, but Amazon also has Amazon Video (not Prime) that sells and rents content just like Apple does.
Hulu has both ad-free and ad-supported plans, primarily offers current TV shows from the three media companies that own it, and is creating its own original first party content.
CBS All Access is similar to Hulu, but it only has content from CBS.
The two most similar services are CBS All Access and Hulu, and if we added HBO NOW to the list that would probably be the most similar to Netflix.
All of that is true, but you are confused because the discussion was about comparing video subscription streaming services, not the the broad category of video distribution which would include cable, satellite, rentals, sales, streaming, over the air, etc., so once again, logically, for purposes of this discussion/comparison, it is silly to compare Apple's music streaming business, Apple Music, to Hulu, Netflix, etc. You might as well compare the local public library's ability to loan DVD's to Hulu---neither the library, nor Apple Music, are in the same business as Hulu or Netflix. I'll let you go, but please check back in a year or two after Apple launches a similar service to Hulu, Netflix, etc., and let's compare how well or poorly whatever Apple calls its video streaming service is doing.
