Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV+ is a US-based streaming network; why should it be forced to carry European content? This makes no sense.

It's as if the BBC were to offer a streaming network in the US but then be forced to carry US content. It's a foreign network!
Because it's selling its service in Europe. Apple TV+ can offer whatever it wants in the US market. If it wants to serve Europe, it needs to meet Europe's needs within that market.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Maconplasma
- European Union: 30% should be local content
- USA: Hey, we want that too
- UK: we’re not that big since we’re on our own, but maybe 10% local content
- China: we don’t want any violence, sex or fool language and 30% local content too
- 100 other countries: where is our 10/20/30% local content
Netflix, Apple, HBO and others: Our business is doomed
User: F*** all that stupid local content, I’ll download my favorites from The Pirate Bay instead
what would happen instead is more tailored catalogues for each region. You'd have to develop content for each of those markets, and see which of the contents developed for other markets will sell best in any other market to be included in the 70% foreign content offered in that market.
 
If it is a cost issue, then subsidize the production (which they already do). Why is the cost lower? It costs more to make content available in other regions for things like local edits, subtitling, dubbing, rights acquisition, etc. If you are saying Europeans cannot produce content that a broad market wants to watch, that seems like a problem for the content. The reason Netflix has so much European content is that it gets it so cheaply (as it is almost all subsidized).
Production cost ≠ language version cost, these two are from different planets, especially when you count in the different scale of marketing budgets, which have already been paid for by the theatrical release. Money comes to money, not necessarily better content. A movie in French will not work in the English speaking market because English speakers are too unaccustomed to reading subtitles. Like I said, not a level playing field.

Also, Netflix is not the same as Apple or Disney, Netflix has a lot of regional content and only licences the most cost-effective content for European markets, Apple and Disney own the rights to most of their content, so licence fees are not really a issue for them.

Again, if you are producing content that is only of interest in a single language region, then of course it will not be of interest to anyone else. Israel is a tiny market and yet has produced quite a few shows that have been picked up in the United States, not counting all those that have had American versions produced. Again, I have no problem with the EU taking tax money and subsidizing production of local content and creating a free EU streaming service with that content. My issue is the requirement that other companies be forced to subsidize it when their views are not interested.

Sorry, that might have be an argument for linear TV and movie theaters. There is no restriction on how many streaming services can exist, so nothing limits people who want to watch European content from doing so. Forcing Amazon, Apple, Disney and Netflix to license European content does not restrict how much American content people in Europe watch. It just forces all customers who do not care about it to pay for it anyway.
I don’t care for 90% of any streaming service’s catalogue but alas, I am forced to pay for it to watch the other stuff. If you don’t like it, buy dvds, right?

But since you also claimed that European content is dirt cheap to licence, that’s great, problem solved. 🤷
 
Drop Europe. This is ridiculous. You don't see the EU being mandated to produce programming in the US. Oh wait, nothing in the EU is wanted in the US...
 
  • Sad
Reactions: revs
So Europe putting Europe first is fine, but when America tries to put America first everyone loses it.
I’m not American but I am also a fan of the story of the little red hen.
These kinds of rules always end up producing a mass of unwatchable dreck like reality TV shows As providers seek to meet the requirement with as little cost as possible so that they can concentrate funds on the stuff people actually want to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crawfish963
How does this help the consumer in any way? Maybe they should add loads of low budget content with zero effort to appease them
 
Classic Doctor Who proves you wrong.

If the BBC hadn't fallen under the control of a clueless fool it would have never gone into hiatus. Sadly the video by Sfdebris that explained the whole ClusterFUBAR got clobbered in the moving from video service provider to video service provider as he couldn't really put it on Youtube as that site is seemingly run by overzealous neurotics. Thankfully, Screenrant's "Why Doctor Who Was Cancelled In The 1980s" hits some of the same points

Classic Doctor Who showed that even if its budget is borderline nonexistent it can compete with a far richer country like United States. Heck, Classic Doctor Who had less of a budget than Original series Star Trek!

In fact, the Star Trek comparison is not that far off as one of the ways Classic Doctor Who was killed off was putting it in a time slot totally unsuited to its audience though in Classic Doctor Who's case it was also run it against one of the most watched shows of the period. You listen to Colin Baker's Big Finish outings like "City of Spires" and "Wreck of the Titan" and realize if he had been given good scripts he would have been a decent Doctor.

Produce good shows with good scripts done by producers who know what the sam hill they are doing and you will succeed even with a poor budget. Pull the kind of crap happening with Doctor Who and Star Trek now and you will not only kill your golden goose but make it to the point that another revival is unlikely no matter how much money you throw at it.
Doctor Who is made by the BBC which is publicly funded from 67M people's TV tax. It's a cult classic, but it's success is an exception to the rule; it doesn't disprove it. Canada has a fair share of its own hit shows that have made it overseas. I was born in the UK and watched Canadian shows The Littlest Hobo, Degrassi, Due South, The Raccoons before moving here. Currently Kim's Convenience, Schitt's Creek, and a few others are doing well. But none of that is enough to combat Hollywood money.

American's have just as much access (actually more) to producers who know "what the sam hill they're doing" and have great writers too. With WAY more money involved, they will win. Not every time, as you point out, but more than enough that countries need to protect their own media industries.
 
The United Kingdom I can see because they speak English, but any other country, no. I didn’t sign up for reading rainbow.
 
It's laughable that a few here agree that this stupid requirement makes sense, because it doesn't. If that's the case then movie studios in U.S need to stop hiring actors from the UK who come to the U.S to make movies and make money off American citizens watching these movies they are in. It's bad enough people from the UK "fix" their voice to sound American in these movies when many of them aren't even U.S. citizens. Just seems so rude that other countries always try to profit off the U.S. in some fashion. SMH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
Maybe you should have faith in your own market. If there are actually good movies and TV shows it’s viable without forcing companies to produce a set amount of local content.

I live in the Netherlands and local movies and TV shows can really compete with Hollywood productions here. Yes, budgets are smaller and you can see that on screen, but even with budgets that are a fraction of what they are they can make quality content here and reach a big audience. We don’t have any such rules and none of our local content is made with oversees money.
One advantage of the Netherlands is that you have your own language. If you want to consume media in your native Dutch, you're going to have to watch Dutch programming. Japan and China have similar barriers to American media takeover. English speaking countries are a bit more prone. But checking a few "top grossing" lists for movies or music and Netherlands is nowhere to be found. I don't say this to be hurtful. I have no question that you have great artists doing great work, but again.. there are exceptions of success, but no one is seriously talking about Hollywood vs. Netherlands.

I have all the faith in the world in Canadian artists and filmmakers and musicians. But like everyone else, they go to where the money is. I live in Ottawa, Canada. One friend from here is a brilliant artist. She's directing for Nickelodeon in California (after stints at Disney and Warner Bros.). Another is a voice talent (voiceover for Warner Bros.). Another is a VFX artist. Moved to Los Angeles. A creative director (also in LA). Musicians Drake, Justin Beiber, Tory Lanez, Celine Dion, and most hockey players are Canadians who moved to the United States because the money machine is too big. They have access to a far larger market.
 
They're looking at the monthly charges going directly to American companies (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc...) instead of their state-sponsored (and sometimes required) local companies. Instead of Europeans paying for European content (in the countries where they have a choice), they're paying for Amazon, Netflix, etc. because the libraries are larger and offer more.

It's akin to India requiring some percent of iPhones to be made in India (or was it a fixed dollar amount of salaries?) before iPhones would be allowed to be sold in the country.

These policies are intended to drive economic growth in their host countries, but most policies end up doing more harm than good.

Why not tax these foreign services and provide a tax credit for a share of the local production. It's not like it's free for these companies to stream content to these customers (not to mention pay royalties, licensing and other stuff), they all cost something.

Forcing 30% of content to be produced in the local region doesn't make any sense if the service already have all of the production studios set up in their own country or share them with other studios.

Provide tax or incentives to build out the production industry in the local regions.
 
Musicians Drake, Justin Beiber, Tory Lanez, Celine Dion, and most hockey players are Canadians who moved to the United States because the money machine is too big. They have access to a far larger market.
And these people I have always had major issues with. As an American it annoys me that these people are taking up a business contract in the U.S that could otherwise be given to a native U.S. citizen. While Celine can sing not a single one of these people have an extraordinary talent. They are simply marketable.
 
I am from Europe... and I hate that already, as it stands, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple Music are littered with local content that I simply cannot get rid of. Even pre-made playlists are full of... Idk... German Hip Hop and other BS. Thank you EU...
 
As a german I found it quite funny and strange at the same time when I first heard back in the 90ies that France had a requirement of a certain percentage of its radio music to be french, something like 40%! I was like wow, what's that for? Later in my life as I fell in love with the country and I traveled a lot I talked to people what they thought of this I found out why. It was meant to keep the french culture, the french language, the whole way of living a certain way. In the 80ies there was an avalanche of American culture influence coming over to Europe and the french decided they needed something to protect their own culture. And it worked. As funny or dumb it sounded to me back then, now I appreciate the quality of art they have managed to keep. The french movies are way way better than most of the german movies (except The Boat) and the french music is lightyears ahead of german music if you look at the quality and creativity as sad as I am to say.

People have different tastes all over the world. I have Apple TV+ free but haven't watched most of it cause its too US centric. I enjoyed the Beastie Boys documentary, The Morning Show and the Greyhound, but that's it.

So yes it would be cool if Apple TV+ would find some european gems cause its way harder for them to find a spot in the sun than even for a mediocre US show or movie. Its a shame they have to be forced though.
 
I am from Europe... and I hate that already, as it stands, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple Music are littered with local content that I simply cannot get rid of. Even pre-made playlists are full of... Idk... German Hip Hop and other BS. Thank you EU...

German Hip Hop is BS. Try French like IAM, Diams, Suprême NTM, MC Solaar and so on. :)
 
Wow that’s dumb, good luck with that, how long until everyone in Europe protest cause they can’t watch anything while being locked down.
 
It's laughable that a few here agree that this stupid requirement makes sense, because it doesn't. If that's the case then movie studios in U.S need to stop hiring actors from the UK who come to the U.S to make movies and make money off American citizens watching these movies they are in. It's bad enough people from the UK "fix" their voice to sound American in these movies when many of them aren't even U.S. citizens. Just seems so rude that other countries always try to profit off the U.S. in some fashion. SMH.
Most of you're "movie stars" are actually Canadian. No problem with Australian actors I take it?
And FYI, for example all of the Star Wars movies were made in the UK.
 
It's very likely not going to happen. As a consumer I don't care too much, we already got some local content on netflix and prime, and I'm probably not going to pay €4,99 for the anemic program and bad UI-experience of appletv+ after my free year ends.

As someone who works in the media, I'd welcome such a move, although for purely selfish reasons. Otoh, for all the tax apple is evading in the EU, they could surely pump a few billions into the economy.
 
I mean of course a majority of content on steaming services is from the US since most media content is produced in the US. If anything they should be encouraging more European productions with tax credits and other incentives, not mandating the streaming services...
This is so US-centric and wrong, it's not even funny. No, most media content isn't produced in US - you just don't see anything else in your US bubble.
 
As a Brit who's lived in Europe for some time and now lives in the US I can say from experience that a lot of European countries are deeply insecure about their language and culture, the French especially feel under attack.

Perhaps if the continent produced content that was worth watching then this wouldn't be a problem, but most stuff produced there sucks. (there is the occasional good thing, I'm a big fan of Scandinoir like The Bridge).
My European friends like watching British/American media, my German friends especially, they all watch US Netflix via VPN's.

Nothing stopping an EU streaming service starting up to compete, but we all know that's not going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
But none of that is enough to combat Hollywood money.

American's have just as much access (actually more) to producers who know "what the sam hill they're doing" and have great writers too. With WAY more money involved, they will win. Not every time, as you point out, but more than enough that countries need to protect their own media industries.
The idea that more money = more success is such a proven fallacy that it isn't funny. Hollywood is filled with films with directors, actors, or scriptwriters that, on paper, should have resulted in a major hit but were a disaster or the money pit from 7734 (can you say "Cleopatra", neighbor? I knew you could :) ). Sometimes it is holding on to a trend long past its use by date (The Death of the Hollywood Movie Musical) or getting on the 'hey this made money let's copy it like crazy' bandwagon (the current reality show blight).
 
Last edited:
This is so US-centric and wrong, it's not even funny. No, most media content isn't produced in US - you just don't see anything else in your US bubble.
You're right in saying most media isn't produced in the US, but most high quality media is. Between the UK and US they dominant the media landscape around the globe. How do I know? Because I've lived all over the world. My German friends hardly ever watch German TV as it's so rare something really good is produced there. They all love watching GoT, The Crown, Southpark etc and they hate dubbed shows and movies as they all speak excellent English. The only German TV show I've watched in the last 5 years is Deutschland 83 and I might watch Barbarians now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.