Apple Orders New TV Series From 'La La Land' Creator Damien Chazelle

[Machead2012]

They wanted to provide an integrated access to entertainment, tried for 3 years to get deals done with current content producers and now they go for plan B. They're goal is not "entertainment", it's just giving a complete service to users instead of the increasingly fragmented one of "cord cutters".
With Disney pulling all their balls from everyone's service, Apple is in no worse shape than well anyone else like Amazon, Netflix and whovever. The hire a few people with lots of experience picking and piloting media projects and invest money in top notch producers and other with good projects.

The ones producing the shows are not Netflix, Amazon or even Disney (except for notable blockbusters).
The studios are merely putting their money in the hands of producers.
All they need is expertise in finance, a guy good at picking winners and a few licensing / IP guys.

You want to know what Apple offers DISTRIBUTION, good god!!
It is so important to success in entertainment that its the reason for constant consolidation and why the US government got the studios to divest their cinemas post WWII.

"All they need is expertise in finance, a guy good at picking winners and a few licensing / IP guys."


As for picking winners and licensing.....There is hope for a new home for Harvey Weinstein!
A comeback???
[doublepost=1516948926][/doublepost]

So far nothing I have seen about any of Apple's upcoming TV show has me even remotely interested. Tim Cook and I have very different taste. Sadly most people probably disagree with me and I'm just an old dork who likes Sci-Fi so I won't get what I would like.
[doublepost=1516931354][/doublepost]
Agree.. Its the best (and one of the only) portrayals of the early days of Silicon Valley.

Many agree w your opinion.....many just dont waste their time w comments.
The current regime at Apple are personal agenda driven elites that make money but lack integrity. IMHO Steve J. would have shown them the door!

 

[Keirasplace]

"All they need is expertise in finance, a guy good at picking winners and a few licensing / IP guys."


As for picking winners and licensing.....There is hope for a new home for Harvey Weinstein!
A comeback???

Well, a non disgusting / non sexual assaulting / non harrassing person with Winstein's expertise is exactly what's needed.

I'd like to think that such a person does exist and it seems like there are few people like that out there ;-).

The skills I enumerated is what you need to be a head of a studio.

 

[unobtainium]

Not going to work. If they go down this path then they need to be 100% a content company. Hardware business model won't work when the product is the software.

Well it could be like iCloud. You access the service by buying hardware. Without an Apple TV, iDevice, or Mac you can’t stream the shows.

 

[Piggie]

I'm not saying that Apple is going to fail, but this seems like a historical route many companies, both hardware and software end up failing at.

You start off with a great product, people love it, and you think, lets make it better.
All goes well for a while, the product gets more and more popular, sometimes being the almost default product for that category.

Then other people get involved who seem to lack the understanding of why they got to where they are, and also greed sets in.
The think if we keep doing more and more stuff, we will keep on growing, expanding and people will simply love us more.

This works for a while, then seems to reach a tipping point when it's apparent you have lost your focus, people start finding problems with your offerings, and now they don't know what to do, as backtracking seems something companies almost can't ever contemplate, they are just too far down the wrong road.

They go into a not listening mode, they know right, and they ignore all the people telling them.

Eventually you find another company, manages to create something lean, mean and fresh, and the whole cycle starts again.

 

[BruceEBonus]

They’re living in it. So,why not buy it outright?

 

[johngordon]

Right outta the gate AirPods were priced lower, and outperformed, wireless buds from other manufacturers.

Apple does what it thinks is best and doesn’t act based on precedent or formula. I’d be loathe to make any firm predictions on what Apple is going to do or how they are going to price it. But if we’re dabbling in pure speculation, I’d guess that they might wanna deal a serious death blow to Spotify by creating at least one option that combines music + video in a way that they just can’t compete with. Somewhere around $15.

It'll be interesting to see what they do.

On the one hand if Apple Music were to include all the tv content at no extra charge, that would seem a pretty amazing deal.

But if it was flipped, and it was $10 for the TV, and they threw in the music as a sweetener, that would somehow seem more sellable.

The TV might be a hard sell initially if its shows are new and unseen and the available content is going to be significantly less than Netflix, and even Amazon of they only have their original stuff.

Mind you, is HBO still pretty much all HBO stuff? Kind of feels like HBO missed the boat and could have been where Netflix is now, just as Sony missed the boat with the Walkman when mp3 players and the iPhone came along.

But $10 for either, or $15 for both might not seem unreasonable.

 

[Bacillus]

Apple seems to be biting off more than they can chew. They never came close to putting a dent into Spotify as expected and arrogantly boasted with iTunes and they certainly will not be able to compete with the success of Netflix unless of course they buy them as rumored before (rumor probably planted from within the apple pr machine). We already have Hulu, HBO, Amazon etc and the recent Fox/Disney deal with a major push toward increased content will further push Apple into the abyss. They should stick to their business model of Computer, software and accessories products.
Whats next? Eddie, Jon and others will start directing film content?....The Apple Awards replacing The Oscars? This company is really starting to crap its pants. The eye raising Beats deal wasn't enough? Really!

What competitive advantage does Apple have in this industry over existing companies (Disney) or new entrants (Netflix, Amazon)?
What core competence does Apple have that will allow them to compete in this industry?
This is a terrible strategic decision. My guess is that Eddy Cue won a power struggle and now he is sidetracking Apple.
[doublepost=1516943561][/doublepost]
Not going to work. If they go down this path then they need to be 100% a content company. Hardware business model won't work when the product is the software.

Apple seems to be biting off more than they can chew. They never came close to putting a dent into Spotify as expected and arrogantly boasted with iTunes and they certainly will not be able to compete with the success of Netflix unless of course they buy them as rumored before (rumor probably planted from within the apple pr machine). We already have Hulu, HBO, Amazon etc and the recent Fox/Disney deal with a major push toward increased content will further push Apple into the abyss. They should stick to their business model of Computer, software and accessories products.
Whats next? Eddie, Jon and others will start directing film content?....The Apple Awards replacing The Oscars? This company is really starting to crap its pants. The eye raising Beats deal wasn't enough? Really!

I am afraid their momentum and size allows for bored billionaires at the top that have lost focus in core activities and think they can achieve anything elsewhere.
Tim's "Toe in the water" is the understatement-label freeing them from expectation or liability when surfing around in hobbies that (like the AppleCar) will lead to nothing until they grab those hughe purses and start buying in big into what they can't make themselves.
The way Jimmy Iovine concluded there is no money in music streaming - but the way he still remains on board of the Mothership says enough.
The way they stated that AppleTV is a hobby until it provides the Universal Television Interface - which they implicitly stopped to do before ever trying - says enough.
Instead, they now work to implement Steve's biggest nightmare for TV: to end up with 999 different streaming providers with subscriptions and no business model for serious journalism anymore.
It is pathetic.
We really need a new CEO/Board to substitute these visionless, unfocused playground billionaires.

 

[sofila]

Such a great film. Need to rewatch it asap.

Chazelle is a really talented dude, I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

I watched the first, oh, half-hour of that, and flipped it off in self-defense. The musical score was CRAP, the characters were completely flimsy. It reminded me of a French guy's idea of Hollywood in the '60s.

I loved the movie.

I watched it all, and enjoyed it well enough, but it pales next to its inspiration, Les Parapluies de Cherbourg.
Then again, it was a box office success and won Best Picture (for a few seconds). If we liked it less than others, we are the aberration.

Instead, maybe we're the few 'crazy ones'.

Yah, we were not able to get through the full movie. Found it boring, non-engaging.

Ah, no taste for the simple things in life.

What's your idea of an excellent musical score? This wan't top of the line, but I enjoyed it.

Oh, also, the ending is half of what makes it worth the watch, so 10/10 review there.

You made it further than I did...opening scene "Wait, they are singing on a freeway? Yeah no thanks"

La La Land best describes Tim Cook action as CEO of Apple!

This is why Macrumors is an interesting place

 

[Mefisto]

I think I need to mention that I actually have yet to see La La Land (which is the film referenced in the rest of the quoted posts if I'm not mistaken), and was talking about Whiplash.

 

[pete2106]

Not that it matters, but I can't help but wonder what Steve Jobs would have thought of this. On the one hand, when he returned to Apple, he cleaned house by consolidating and eliminating all of the extra crap Apple was doing at the time. They cut out all of those ridiculous Mac lines (like the Performas etc.) and the pet projects (QuickTake camera, Newton, etc.) and they focused on the grid with four boxes: consumer laptop, consumer desktop, pro laptop, pro desktop. That was it. Furthermore, each computer only had a limited number of options. Steve's aesthetic seemed to be in line with the idea that less was more. One button on the mouse. Only USB ports on the iMac. No stylus with the iPhone. You all know what I'm talking about.

So, now that Apple is diversifying it's Apple TV product into actual programming, and negotiating deals with producers, directors and entertainers, are they trying to juggle a little too much, or does it make sense and fit in to their overall business image and strategic goals? On the other hand, Steve was also CEO of Pixar, and he did seem to love being in the entertainment business.

I do wonder how he'd feel about the direction Apple has taken since his death, but I can't help but feel that they have lost that innovative edge they had back in the late 70s and early 80s, and again in the late 90s and early 2000s. Regardless of the fact that Steve was not an engineer or programmer, he did seem to bring this priority of innovation to the company which neither Tim Cook nor Jony Ive alone can seem to replicate. Apple branded programming on the Apple TV? Interesting, but not exactly innovative. We'll see how it works out for them.

I've had this thought too, Problem is, Apple can't maintain their profit levels on those kind of products any more. Tim Cook inherited a company with a problem. Apple's products were at that point almost entirely based on hardware sales of people feverishly buying new iPhones and iPads every year to keep up. When he took over, people were becoming more savvy about how often they bought new hardware and sales were slowing. He had to start transforming Apple into a services company so that they could maintain profit levels. That's why we're seeing Apple Music, and the iPhone Refresh program. They're trying to get people into paying monthly for services instead of paying one off for a product.

 

[sofila]

I've had this thought too, Problem is, Apple can't maintain their profit levels on those kind of products any more. Tim Cook inherited a company with a problem. Apple's products were at that point almost entirely based on hardware sales of people feverishly buying new iPhones and iPads every year to keep up. When he took over, people were becoming more savvy about how often they bought new hardware and sales were slowing. He had to start transforming Apple into a services company so that they could maintain profit levels. That's why we're seeing Apple Music, and the iPhone Refresh program. They're trying to get people into paying monthly for services instead of paying one off for a product.

Apple's size now is gigantic, and everything Apple does is worldwide scrutinized, and Apple moves money as no one did before. So, as long as I don't like Tim Cook's moves, I would call his duty "an hard task" at the minimum

 

[TroyBoy30]

stop with the tv shows, politics and cars and focus on the important stuff

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Well it could be like iCloud. You access the service by buying hardware. Without an Apple TV, iDevice, or Mac you can’t stream the shows.

iCloud is trash and far below the competitors (e.g. Google Drive)
[doublepost=1516983763][/doublepost]

They wanted to provide an integrated access to entertainment, tried for 3 years to get deals done with current content producers and now they go for plan B. They're goal is not "entertainment", it's just giving a complete service to users instead of the increasingly fragmented one of "cord cutters".
With Disney pulling all their balls from everyone's service, Apple is in no worse shape than well anyone else like Amazon, Netflix and whovever. The hire a few people with lots of experience picking and piloting media projects and invest money in top notch producers and other with good projects.

The ones producing the shows are not Netflix, Amazon or even Disney (except for notable blockbusters).
The studios are merely putting their money in the hands of producers.
All they need is expertise in finance, a guy good at picking winners and a few licensing / IP guys.

You want to know what Apple offers DISTRIBUTION, good god!!
It is so important to success in entertainment that its the reason for constant consolidation and why the US government got the studios to divest their cinemas post WWII.

You didn't address anything I said.
[doublepost=1516983961][/doublepost]

I am afraid their momentum and size allows for bored billionaires at the top that have lost focus in core activities and think they can achieve anything elsewhere.
Tim's "Toe in the water" is the understatement-label freeing them from expectation or liability when surfing around in hobbies that (like the AppleCar) will lead to nothing until they grab those hughe purses and start buying in big into what they can't make themselves.
The way Jimmy Iovine concluded there is no money in music streaming - but the way he still remains on board of the Mothership says enough.
The way they stated that AppleTV is a hobby until it provides the Universal Television Interface - which they implicitly stopped to do before ever trying - says enough.
Instead, they now work to implement Steve's biggest nightmare for TV: to end up with 999 different streaming providers with subscriptions and no business model for serious journalism anymore.
It is pathetic.
We really need a new CEO/Board to substitute these visionless, unfocused playground billionaires.

Public Company 101. The firm is making profits YOY. Risk of shakeup and losing money > risk of failing to innovate.

 

[DaveWil]

Apple is a joke now. And so is this website.

This is the basic troll. You first start by going to a site where the item is popular, then use this formula: first say the name of the item + a negative phrase + factoid that may or may not have anything to do with the item (note item can be anything, be creative in your trolling)

Its fun and easy, now you can try.

 

[Keirasplace]

iCloud is trash and far below the competitors (e.g. Google Drive)
[doublepost=1516983763][/doublepost]
You didn't address anything I said.
[doublepost=1516983961][/doublepost]
Public Company 101. The firm is making profits YOY. Risk of shakeup and losing money > risk of failing to innovate.

Yes, I answered it. Learn to read.

 

[sidewinder3000]

They do a decent job of it but I hope they don’t buy Netflix. They would ruin it.

Fairly certain they won’t.
[doublepost=1517133644][/doublepost]

What competitive advantage does Apple have in this industry over existing companies (Disney) or new entrants (Netflix, Amazon)?
What core competence does Apple have that will allow them to compete in this industry?
This is a terrible strategic decision. My guess is that Eddy Cue won a power struggle and now he is sidetracking Apple.

You don’t know what competitive advantage they have over Disney, Netflix, or Amazon? How about almost a billion iPhones, to start? Add to that the most complete and sticky tech ecosystem on the planet, with 100’s of millions of active, media hungry participants, and it’s pretty obvious.

Also, who says they wanna “compete in this industry’? I’m not sure what that really means. What industry? This could be a deathblow to Spotify, it could be a way to lock-in more users to their ecosystem, a way to sell more next-gen Apple TV’s or some other TV device... there are a lot of reasons they could be entering this market.

It’s fun to guess what those reasons might be, but smugly trying to come up with reason why it will fail before they’ve announced anything seems like a waste of time.
[doublepost=1517134612][/doublepost]

They were priced lower compared to some Bose and other wireless headphones, but I don't know if you can say they outperformed them.

Granted the airpods are amazing for calls, but they don't have features that others have (like having two devices connected at the same time, so you can answer calls from 2 phones/devices). I think second generation airpods have a chance to truly be an outstanding product, but Tim Cook is such a greedy fool who knows.

I think they were priced alrighty for their performance with the W1 chip and clarity in noise environments are the best parts. But given the deficiencies in Apple's ecosystem, lack of volume controls and having to use Siri (sorry, Siri is so bad it makes me want to puke), I passed on them.

Regarding these investments in Media, I see them Apple throwing mud on every wall as Tim loser Cook has no vision, no personality, and no strategic goal for Apple. he is more interested in personal appearances than changing the world. He is the perfect person that needs to go make sugar water.

I own them, use them 3-5 times a day, and can say, unequivocally, that they are already an outstanding product. Their connectivity alone smokes every other pair of wireless earbuds on the market. No doubt the next gen will be better. But they’re already great. And, to my original point, they are not the highest priced earbuds on the market, contrary to the previous poster that implied that Apple overprices all their products.

I’m surprised you have such a definitive opinion about them without owning them or using them for an extended period. I’ve owned and used other wireless headphones and the experience of owning and using these far exceeds them. They are easily one of my favorite new gadgets in years.
[doublepost=1517135227][/doublepost]

It'll be interesting to see what they do.

On the one hand if Apple Music were to include all the tv content at no extra charge, that would seem a pretty amazing deal.

But if it was flipped, and it was $10 for the TV, and they threw in the music as a sweetener, that would somehow seem more sellable.

The TV might be a hard sell initially if its shows are new and unseen and the available content is going to be significantly less than Netflix, and even Amazon of they only have their original stuff.

Mind you, is HBO still pretty much all HBO stuff? Kind of feels like HBO missed the boat and could have been where Netflix is now, just as Sony missed the boat with the Walkman when mp3 players and the iPhone came along.

But $10 for either, or $15 for both might not seem unreasonable.

I agree. There are some great options and it’s gonna be fascinating to see how this winds up.

I do disagree on HBO, though. They still have the best content out there and I think it would have been a mistake for them to try to do what Netflix does.

 

[johngordon]

I agree. There are some great options and it’s gonna be fascinating to see how this winds up.

I do disagree on HBO, though. They still have the best content out there and I think it would have been a mistake for them to try to do what Netflix does.

I didn't quite mean that HBO should have done what Netflix does in terms of content. I mean more about how they make their service available outside the US. I think if HBO had made HBO Go available internationally as a standalone service just as Netflix is, it might have had more international visibility.

For example, here in the UK HBO stuff is only available exclusively through Sky (and I guess on NowTV). But its on a channel Sky Atlantic that even years later they have held back from the Virgin Cable. I guess its a carrot to get people to switch to Sky, but for me at least its not enough of a carrot. But before Netflix took off with its original content I could have seen myself subscribing to something like HBO Go.

They originally had a five year deal with Sky, and I wondered if they might part company when that finished, but in 2015 they renewed if for another five years. Presumably they've crunched the numbers and Sky are willing to pay them handsomely for the exclusivity.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I didn't quite mean that HBO should have done what Netflix does in terms of content. I mean more about how they make their service available outside the US. I think if HBO had made HBO Go available internationally as a standalone service just as Netflix is, it might have had more international visibility.

For example, here in the UK HBO stuff is only available exclusively through Sky (and I guess on NowTV). But its on a channel Sky Atlantic that even years later they have held back from the Virgin Cable. I guess its a carrot to get people to switch to Sky, but for me at least its not enough of a carrot. But before Netflix took off with its original content I could have seen myself subscribing to something like HBO Go.

They originally had a five year deal with Sky, and I wondered if they might part company when that finished, but in 2015 they renewed if for another five years. Presumably they've crunched the numbers and Sky are willing to pay them handsomely for the exclusivity.

Wow, that sucks. HBO is literally the one service I’d never wanna give up. Curious why they don’t offer it in the U.K. Hope that changes son.