Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
They should film in 8k or higher so that shots can be cropped with no discernible loss of quality to the end product.

What do you even mean by this?


Apple leverages its Apple Music streaming service to go into video streaming. Charges a single fee to customers for both music and tv shows. Possibility of undercutting both Spotify and Netflix.

Seems like Apple is way behind Amazon in this case.


Makes no sense to me. I'd think they would be working towards an :apple: TV service, similar to :apple: Music. Unlimited shows and movies on iTunes for let's say $40 a month? I'd pay $50, easily. I feel like that would be a better strategy. Then maybe add original content into the :apple: TV service that is exclusive.

Still waiting for a iTunes store subscription though. Willing to pay up to around £30/mo for unlimited access to music, movies and TV shows as long as it covers everything on the store, including brand new releases.

The amount of licensing involved to make the iTunes library an on-demand subscription service is insane and it is why you will never see that anywhere close to the price points you're both suggesting. You'd be lucky if it started at $100 but I think that's selling it fairly low. I'm not saying it wouldn't be an ideal service, but it's just not going to happen.
 
I hate this.

The very idea of Apple creating TV shows to stream on their music platform exemplifies everything wrong with Apple today: they have no clear direction and are really confusing their customers.

Their MUSIC platform? What is that?

It's only the NAME of their platform that needs changing. It's still 'iTunes' even though they've had videos, books, etc. on their platform for the past 5-10 years.
 
Driverless cars can't come soon enough! How can we watch all of this good TV with so little time in the day.
 
Again, How would Apple buy an American company when they keep most of their money outside the United States to avoid paying taxes?

If Trump gets his way (a big IF), then the cost of bringing money back into the US will be greatly reduced.
 
Nobody wants to be a distribution channel. However, channels make money, lots of money. They don't, however, get you to awards shows and such.

Instead, Apple Music should become a record label. They already have the know-how in-house. Apple Music rises again!
[doublepost=1484237081][/doublepost]
If Trump gets his way (a big IF), then the cost of bringing money back into the US will be greatly reduced.

It's a win-win for everyone, really. It should happen by the end of the first congressional session, unless it gets lumped into tax reform.
 
When you wield absolute control over your own ecosystem the way Apple does, you are never behind.

Yeah, tell that to Blackberry and Nokia. They wielded "absolute control over your own ecosystem" and where are they now?

I'd argue you are behind if your ecosystem is tied your hardware which is priced out of reach of the majority of consumers and the content is readily available elsewhere on cheaper devices. What about their ecosystem is so compelling? Are people going to rush over to Apple's ecosystem because you can get video and music from the same store or they have a couple good shows? Have you used Apples ecosystem on windows or android lately? What nonsense.
 
Look on the bright side of things. If Apple does continue to neglect the Mac in 2017, at least it will not have been in vain.

Unless the shows turn out to be as dismal as the offerings being floated. "Yeah, we pretty much killed the Mac, but now we have PLANET OF THE APPS, and isn't that what really counts most?" "Yeah, the Mac was a great platform we neglected criminally for getting close to half a decade now, but now we have a series with Dr. Dre -- Producer of the year, 2002! So it was SO worth it!"
 
Apple is spreading the butter too thin.

Apple users want better hardware and better services.
 
It's a really gutsy comment that makes me think they are underestimating what is required to make something amazing in this area.

Most movies are a losing deal financially, and the studios are buoyed up by the blockbusters. And that's the pros -- the studios who have been doing this for almost a century. Apple's just going to wander in and do it better than everyone else? Not at all likely.
 
I have been calling for Apple to offer original content for a while. It's a compelling reason for people to buy a Apple devices. Original exclusive content. However personally I would have more confidence in Apple if they simply bought an established content provider with an existing library and a proven track record.
 
Warner Bros. made Westworld. HBO licensed it for TV broadcast. Wikipedia

It's still very much an HBO original series. It was HBO who put in the order for the pilot and the first season. You make it sound as if WB had the show already completed and it was just sitting on a shelf somewhere and they sold it to HBO to put on tv. Not to mention all this ignores that both HBO and WB are both owned by the same parent company, Time Warner, so it really comes down to them paying themselves for licensing the rights.
 
What do you even mean by this?

If you shoot at 8K, for delivery to 4K screens, you have four times the amount of information (in pixels) to play with. This gives the director and/or editor the opportunity to re-frame the shot by cropping into the plate. Think of it as using Photoshop to zoom into a photo that's twice the pixel resolution of your display. As long as you don't go past 100% magnification, the quality of the detail won't visibly suffer on the display, but you can scroll the image around to arrive at a different framing.

In Visual Effects (CGI) we use a similar technique, where we render our images with extra content outside of the borders of the visible frame. It gives us a buffer for a variety of extra needs, such as lens-distortion, 2D camera shake, and indeed, subtle re-framing of the shot.
 
Last edited:
Apple, why are you spending money on something that's outside your core product instead of figuring out how to create a real Macbook Pro and some real innovation on the iPhone instead of breaking things that Jobs built...
Apple isn't two men in a garage any more. Don't you think that they are big enough to do both if they wanted to?
Apple is a huge behmoth of a company these days. The 'Spaceship' is evidence enough of that if nothing else.
Sure, I'd like a new iMac as I passed on the new MBP's but it is a 'like' not a must have or I'll throw my toys out of the pram and move to Windows (Shudder) sort of thing. We don't see the huse steps in system performance these days unlike we did 10 years ago so the race to have the latest and fastest system don't happen any more. As a result, it makes perfect sense to diversify into other areas.
Tim Cook has signalled that 'Services' are an area they are targetting. Making TV Shows falls into that area does it not?
 
Invoking Westworld and Stranger Things for a comparison is extremely optimistic.

Those shows are made by outside production companies and paid for by HBO and Netflix.

Here are a few tv shows that are being worked on by various production companies that I don't think have a home yet:
Wizard and Glass (The Dark Tower, Stephen King)
various Marvel shows
Metropolis (from creator of Mr.Robot)
Homecoming (from creator of Mr.Robot)
The Vampire Chronicles (Anne Rice)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Wild Cards (George R.R. Martin)
Prototype
Deadly Class (Russo Bros)
Battlefield (from video game)
Purity (Daniel Craig)
Underworld
Darktown (Thomas Mullen)
Tremors
Tales From the Dark Side
Galaxy Quest
Locke and Key (Joe Hill's graphic novels)

There are tons more. Most of these shows are in the script stage, some are in pilot stage. If Apple has been moving on these in the background, they could be further along.
 
If you shoot at 8K, for delivery to 4K screens, you have four times the amount of information (in pixels) to play with. This gives the director and/or editor the opportunity to re-frame the shot by cropping into the plate. Think of it as using Photoshop to zoom into a photo that's twice the pixel resolution as your display is. As long as you don't go past 100% magnification, the quality of the detail won't visibly suffer on the display, but you can scroll the image around to arrive at a different framing.

In Visual Effects (CGI) we use a similar technique, where we render our images with extra content outside of the borders of the visible frame. It gives us a buffer for a variety of extra needs, such as lens-distortion, 2D camera shake, and indeed, subtle re-framing of the shot.

No, I get that. I work in post production. Maybe it was just the way it was worded I thought you meant something entirely different.

Of course this has been done a lot in the digital realm as resolutions have increased, especially for VFX plates. However I'm not sure it should necessarily become the rule in filmmaking, as there's still a lot to say for getting your framing on set.
 
Most movies are a losing deal financially, and the studios are buoyed up by the blockbusters. And that's the pros -- the studios who have been doing this for almost a century. Apple's just going to wander in and do it better than everyone else? Not at all likely.
Movies lose money? Only if you agree with the very crooked Hollywood accounting rules. Rules that I might add would never be allowed in any other business.
Even the biggest grossing Harry Potter Movie lost money according to Hollywood. Get real. IT made millions and millions.
 
No, I get that. I work in post production. Maybe it was just the way it was worded I thought you meant something entirely different.

Of course this has been done a lot in the digital realm as resolutions have increased, especially for VFX plates. However I'm not sure it should necessarily become the rule in filmmaking, as there's still a lot to say for getting your framing on set.

Oh I agree. I'm all for directors planning their shots properly on set. It would certainly make our job a lot easier. :D Unfortunately I'm seeing directors relying more and more on post production to 'make up their mind'.
 
Apple should start with a show about a very large corporation that has lost it's direction after the loss of a popular visionary leader. It's executives sit on other corporate boards and raise money for politicians, and hire lobbyists and tax lawyers to manipulate its fortunes. Eventually its ecosystem turns into egosystem and the once unstoppable company starts to miss opportunities. Meanwhile thousands of employees are all battling for that corner office, only to find that their new headquarters building is round.
 
It's still very much an HBO original series. It was HBO who put in the order for the pilot and the first season. You make it sound as if WB had the show already completed and it was just sitting on a shelf somewhere and they sold it to HBO to put on tv.

Yes, but HBO didn't take people from their video stream team and put them in charge of making Westworld. Likewise, Apple will not be putting the Mac Mini design team in charge of making tv shows. A lot of people here seem to think that Apple is a very small and poor company with just a few employees who have to multitask in order to get everything done. Apple producing tv shows will have almost no effect on people in their other departments.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.