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 TV+ and Its 18 Emmy Nominations Take Over Apple's Homepage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really, Netflix had 31 nominations in 2014 when they just had started producing their own material and were just eligible. and even then that was huge because some of hollywood was trying to keep netflix out of the emmys so it was surprising when they got that much and only had like 3 shows and 2 movies. Also netflix this year made Emmy Nomination history buy having 160 nominations so yeah....
16 of the 18 nominations I have absolutely ZERO interest in. 2 noms as far as i'm concerned.
Best Darkness throughout the entire series goes to -- Servant!
just remember Netflix had a 6/7yr head start before making their own series. Apple started from the get go
in time they’ll improve.I hope these nominations puts a mud hole into the haters saying it’s a waste of Apples finances and effort.
Unbreakable was NOT Shyamalan’s worst work. I nominate the movie with the trees giving off aerial venom making humans kill themselves with Mark Whalberg LMAO! Only the very first 15mins was decent (aside from Mark as a teacher - sucks as an actor except: his first movie, Pain & Gain - not much acting there, and the oil rig movie which was very good).
I do get what you mean with Shyamalan’s work sometimes your in and it’s great and thin suddenly you’re like “ah come on ma’am! Like really?! Really now!” ; case in point that nymph movie of the redhead in the pool trying to get back to her magical realm with Giamatti starring as lead actor.
Youve got to be kidding me, netflix did not have a 6/7yr head start. Those six to 7 years was mailable DVDs and streaming other studios content in the last three years. When they first started, they were literally at square one... NOBODY had done something like netflix was trying to do with producing original content and quess what else they also werent any where NEAR a 2 billion dollar company like Apple is and had unlimited resources to throw at it.just remember Netflix had a 6/7yr head start before making their own series. Apple started from the get go
I hope these nominations puts a mud hole into the haters saying it’s a waste of Apples finances and effort.
Let me say it again....
Netflix first year able to be nominated (while having to fight against hollywood because they believed putting Netflix, a streaming service, would diminish the emmys) and having well under 1 billion of cash and only 4-5 shows/movies. (31 nominations)
Apple first year nominated (after hollywood has embraced the productions done by streaming services) and having well over 1 billion cash and more shows (and also more well known actors available for first emmy nomination. (18 nominations)
Lets not forget that Netflix this year broke record with having 160 nominations which is unheard of....
Netflix has been streaming for about 6 years now. The DVD's and VHS was when BlockBuster was still in it's heyday.
Jan 2007 Netflix announced it would be streaming.
Feb 2007 Netflix shipped it's billionth DVD.
Feb 2007 Netflix began On-Demand streaming.
Mar 12TH 2008 Hulu began to compete.
Sept 2010 Netflix began streaming to international market beginning with Canada.
2011:
Sept 5TH: Brazil
Sept 7TH: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay,
Sept 8TH: Chile, Bolivia
Sept 9TH: Peru, Ecuador
Sept 12TH: Mexico, Central America, Caribbean
Sept 18TH: DVD of Netflix split off to Quikster announced.
Feb 1, 2013: Netflix starts streaming House of Cards its FIRST original content!
Timeline of Netflix - Wikipedia
2019 AppleTV+ announced March 25TH - 2013 = 6yrs.
Netflix had 6yrs before it's first streaming TV episode. Again 6yrs (I said 6-7yrs for each case).
Tell me my math is wrong here?
Netflix was fist yes ... but it took them 6yrs before starting. And they had a LOT more than 1 billion in cash to do it. That wouldn't matter because you can get investors to back them - creditors from the banks etc. I'm not downplaying their efforts and first to do this ... but it still took them a while plain and simple. The stock dropped after 800K subscribers left due to the DVD spin off but I'm sure most came back and that stock drop was temporary.
Apple is not waiting 6yrs before getting into their own content ... their being frugal not pumping money into it just because. They want quality and unique shows, unique plots not the same run of the mill content we've all seen typical of Hollywood. I'd prefer that even if many I'm still challenged to begin watching, yet I've been that way for most shows and movies anyway.
Not all of Netflix's shows got nominated yet 18 nominations for various shows in it's first full year or starting 2nd year of releases at the Emmy's is outstanding.
Last edited:
Netflix has been streaming for about 6 years now. The DVD's and VHS was when BlockBuster was still in it's heyday.
Jan 2007 Netflix announced it would be streaming.
Feb 2007 Netflix shipped it's billionth DVD.
Feb 2007 Netflix began On-Demand streaming.
Mar 12TH 2008 Hulu began to compete.
Sept 2010 Netflix began streaming to international market beginning with Canada.
2011:
Sept 5TH: Brazil
Sept 7TH: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay,
Sept 8TH: Chile, Bolivia
Sept 9TH: Peru, Ecuador
Sept 12TH: Mexico, Central America, Caribbean
Sept 18TH: DVD of Netflix split off to Quikster announced.
Feb 1, 2013: Netflix starts streaming House of Cards its FIRST original content!
Timeline of Netflix - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2019 AppleTV+ announced March 25TH - 2013 = 6yrs.
Netflix had 6yrs before it's first streaming TV episode. Again 6yrs (I said 6-7yrs for each case).
Tell me my math is wrong here?
Netflix was fist yes ... but it took them 6yrs before starting. And they had a LOT more than 1 billion in cash to do it. That wouldn't matter because you can get investors to back them - creditors from the banks etc. I'm not downplaying their efforts and first to do this ... but it still took them a while plain and simple. The stock dropped after 800K subscribers left due to the DVD spin off but I'm sure most came back and that stock drop was temporary.
Apple is not waiting 6yrs before getting into their own content ... their being frugal not pumping money into it just because. They want quality and unique shows, unique plots not the same run of the mill content we've all seen typical of Hollywood. I'd prefer that even if many I'm still challenged to begin watching, yet I've been that way for most shows and movies anyway.
Not all of Netflix's shows got nominated yet 18 nominations for various shows in it's first full year or starting 2nd year of releases at the Emmy's is outstanding.
apple had been distributing movies and tv shows through itunes since 2013.
First it doesn't matter when Netflix started streaming they weren't producing. Hulu until the last couple of years didn't produce their own stuff so hulu isn't comparable. As for the 6 years ahead of apple.... Apple came into this with having streaming services producing content being the norm. They had plenty of other streaming services to look at and build a game plan from the positive and negatives of the others. Netflix had nothing to go on and imo did the correct thing unlike apple. You don't start producing movies on your own streaming service if you don't have a backlog of other content. Netflix took years to build up there streaming backlog so when they released their own content you weren't paying extra for it it was just extra to the huge catalogue they had. Apple should have never started apple tv + without purchasing rights for a backlog to go with it.Netflix has been streaming for about 6 years now. The DVD's and VHS was when BlockBuster was still in it's heyday.
Jan 2007 Netflix announced it would be streaming.
Feb 2007 Netflix shipped it's billionth DVD.
Feb 2007 Netflix began On-Demand streaming.
Mar 12TH 2008 Hulu began to compete.
Sept 2010 Netflix began streaming to international market beginning with Canada.
2011:
Sept 5TH: Brazil
Sept 7TH: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay,
Sept 8TH: Chile, Bolivia
Sept 9TH: Peru, Ecuador
Sept 12TH: Mexico, Central America, Caribbean
Sept 18TH: DVD of Netflix split off to Quikster announced.
Feb 1, 2013: Netflix starts streaming House of Cards its FIRST original content!
Timeline of Netflix - Wikipedia
2019 AppleTV+ announced March 25TH - 2013 = 6yrs.
Netflix had 6yrs before it's first streaming TV episode. Again 6yrs (I said 6-7yrs for each case).
Tell me my math is wrong here?
Netflix was fist yes ... but it took them 6yrs before starting. And they had a LOT more than 1 billion in cash to do it. That wouldn't matter because you can get investors to back them - creditors from the banks etc. I'm not downplaying their efforts and first to do this ... but it still took them a while plain and simple. The stock dropped after 800K subscribers left due to the DVD spin off but I'm sure most came back and that stock drop was temporary.
Apple is not waiting 6yrs before getting into their own content ... their being frugal not pumping money into it just because. They want quality and unique shows, unique plots not the same run of the mill content we've all seen typical of Hollywood. I'd prefer that even if many I'm still challenged to begin watching, yet I've been that way for most shows and movies anyway.
Not all of Netflix's shows got nominated yet 18 nominations for various shows in it's first full year or starting 2nd year of releases at the Emmy's is outstanding.
As for you saying the quality and content on apple is superior because the handpick the content instead of just throwing it out there like netflix....
Well obviously you are biased towards Apple tv +. I never once commented on who had better content because I realize is all subjective. All I did was put actual facts down. If it means that much to you for Apple TV + to be 100% awesome and dislike everything else because it's not Apple than for your sake I hope you get what you want.
Apple did NOT have their own streaming service ... they just were a conduit for other movie distributors (they only acted as another distributer) not a streaming service on their own. Apple doesn't host those movies you get from iTunes Movies on their servers.
[automerge]1599281755[/automerge]
Now you're saying it doesn't matter after stating I was wrong on that very subject. convenient.
And yet that is exactly what Apple has done: produce movies and shows on their own streaming service without a backlog of other content. How are you not seeing the basics against your debate here by your own admission?
Just another thought on this. If we count that with Apple's iTunes Movies being a distributor then we can say the same with Netflix with VHS and DVD's for over 8yrs prior to 2013 then. Care to go further than that?
It really is. And on so many different levels.
Steve would ne.... no, I’ve never said it and I won’t start now.
But really, wtaf?
Last edited:
again. none of it matters. netflix didn't get emmies for shows they distributed, they got emmies for the very first shows they produced.
That's great. So then why are you so critical about Apple getting nominations for Emmy's in their first year? Like which debate are you going with here? The fact Apple wasn't the first streaming service to create their own TV shows and get an Emmy is that your debate? Cause that's not what I've been debating here. Apple has done great in their first full year (a little more) and multiple nominations and they've not had experience in this area before. Give credit where it's due or you just dislike Apple in the first place??
Of course. Stealing whatever you want is usually cheaper than paying for it. Works out pretty well until you pay the price with your freedom.
NOONE is critical about apple getting nominations. They put in the work and got 18 nominations and I am sure they are well deserved. What everyone IS critical about is people saying Apple TV+ must be the best thing ever because they got 18 nominations first year and acting like this has never happened before.
As for Apple coming into this with no experience...
Netflix didnt have ANY experience when they went in as well, they put in the work and got 41 nominations and they are also well deserved.
Apple did come into this with having seen multiple others that had no experience at all and had the benefit of lessons learned unlike Netflix
How about you give credit where its due being Netflix got 41 nominations with less self produced content first year and Apple got only 18 nominations with actually more self produced content their first year.
Maybe this announce at the homepage might mean that the new Apple TV will be released very soon and Apple wishes to precede the update with a "see what you can watch from us". The approach is wrong because Apple should focus in what made them great (ie: being a company that makes -very good- products) and avoid jumping into the services subscription business, which is the trend but it's not the area where they excel (in fact subscriptions are counterproductive to making great products, because subscriptions lead to user control, which is precisely what the customer who loves good products tends to avoid).
So, Apple TV should excel at watching TV and content made by broadcasting companies, and avoid putting so much focus in ATV+.
So, Apple TV should excel at watching TV and content made by broadcasting companies, and avoid putting so much focus in ATV+.
If this is quite accurate I seriously don’t like it.
We already have quite high prices on many products, sometimes quite the skewed offerings: RAM selection prices on Macs and, ehm, Mac Pro wheels come to mind. I’m an Apple fan but I’m also a fan of my own money.
Netflix being CAD 15.34 after tax for me over here, Apple TV+ is definitely operating with less cash flow sources from subscription muscle. Besides there’s also the data hosting, streaming and a bunch of infrastructure that probably we don’t even think off to be factored in.
I guess they are aiming for volume to cover the costs but if it fails, I would rather they increase the service directly.
i do agree that “The Happening” is maybe even worst than Unbreakable. But’s terrible almost from the beginning, so you don’t feel so disappointed when it ends as bad as it started. But Unbreakable...I remember to be mad about all the people that give that script the green light. Is not only Shyamalan fault, but everyone that read it and didn’t say “this is cr..p, just trash it”. For the lucky people of MR that didn’t watch it, I will save you 2 hours of your life: a guy with a bone disease -prone to fractures- decides to kill thousands of people in multiple terrorist attacks just to find one person that will be his opposite: a superhero-like person and...you got it “unbreakable”. He gets REALLY lucky, because in a world of 7 billion people, he only need to kill a fraction of that to discover that the person that he’s looking for lives in the SAME CITY. An equally statistically absurd side story: Bruce Willis has the “superpower”? of see people past actions by touching them...of course he only need to touch 3 o 4 to find a vicious killer. At the end of the movie he start to wear a hoodie...because all superheroes need a costume.
Darn... I’m in that rare demographic that actually liked “Unbreakable”, enough to have been pleasantly surprised that “Split” is part of the same universe at the end of the movie (saw nothing before about it, just got it recommended to me) and will give “Glass” a try at some point.
Besides the statistically impossible connection, I did like the overall arch of “an opposite has to exist” pretty much like for example men are statistically spread at the extremes between being born a genius or have a seriously impaired brain, very strong body build or a very weak one... most will fall in between, but the outliers will spill both ways.