Not relevant because CODA was already a finished product. All Apple did was purchase the rights to it and put it on their streaming service, that's it. It was a ready made product that suited Apple because they did not have to put any of their own resources into making it.
I find I both agree and disagree with this statement, and I think it points to the fundamental difference between Apple and the other streaming services, and what this means for Apple moving forward.
I see the logic behind the argument that there is little pride in Apple winning an award for a movie that they did not produce themselves. However, one could also look at it another way - if it was so easy to just "buy" your way into the oscars, why hasn't Netflix or Amazon Prime done it, despite having had a multi-year head start?
The reason, I feel, boils down to the difference in their respective video strategies. Apple is betting on quality over quantity. In a sense, the content we see on TV+ have already been curated and green lighted by Apple management. Compared to Netflix flooding their services with a boatload of content, and either relying on the algorithm to surface relevant content for the consumer, or for the consumer to locate it themselves.
So while Apple had its eye on quality content worthy of winning an Oscar, Netflix was instead content to just keep blowing billions of dollars on forgettable popcorn movies like Red Notice. It also properly contextualises Apple's decision to not purchase a back catalogue of licensed content to serve as filler (contrast this with Amazon recently purchasing MGM for 8.5 billion). What Apple is gunning for in the long run is a platform that prioritises storytelling above simply grabbing subscriber time and attention with fluff and nonsense.
At the end of the day, what Apple has won here is legitimacy. A badge of honour which I hope will translate into an improved ability to attract better talent to work for them, which should mean even better quality content in the future. If I were the video executives working at Netflix, I would be freaking out and calling for all-nighter meetings right now, trying to figure out how it is that with 220 million paid subscribers, $30 billion in revenue, and despite throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, nothing has stuck, and whether Netflix's existing video strategy ought to be re-assessed or not (it very likely will).
There is another corollary point about how this possibly also means better privacy and security in TV+ (as it implies that my content consumption behaviour isn't being tracked and monitored), and this has received fairly little attention in the video streaming industry thus far, but I feel it's also something to watch out for. As with Facebook, I won't be surprised if something that was once considered the norm today suddenly becomes unacceptable in the future (perhaps with a little prodding by Apple). But that is perhaps another discussion for another day.