'F1: The Movie' Coming to Apple TV+ on Friday, December 12

[floydbot]

It’s more that I’m encouraging people to not support scummy business practices. Piracy is on the rise for a reason, it’s not the consumers’ fault.

How is Apple's F1 release schedule "scummy," though?

And piracy very much is the consumers' fault. We're not talking about food, water, shelter or healthcare here -- people are not entitled to see whatever movies they want at a price and time of their choosing. If you feel like it's still too expensive or burdensome to watch F1, more power to you -- but that doesn't somehow entitle you to steal it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

And piracy very much is the consumers' fault. We're not talking about food, water, shelter or healthcare here -- people are not entitled to see whatever movies they want at a price and time of their choosing. If you feel like it's still too expensive or burdensome to watch F1, more power to you -- but that doesn't somehow entitle you to steal it.

Don’t worry about it.
If the user who pirates was either:

A. not going to pay for it (or go see it)

or

B. pirate it

Nothing was lost anyhow.
It wasn’t a lost customer that was going to go pay for XYZ content anyhow.

Digital content has essentially zero marginal cost, so this isn’t worth fretting over nor guilting anyone about.

 

[sfwalter]

Oh it is only coming to Apple TV Plus but not Apple TV. Odd choice. haha

 

[floydbot]

Don’t worry about it.
If the user who pirates was either:

A. not going to pay for it (or go see it)

or

B. pirate it

Nothing was lost anyhow.
It wasn’t a lost customer that was going to go pay for XYZ content anyhow.

Digital content has essentially zero marginal cost, so this isn’t worth fretting over nor guilting anyone about.

I mean, I'm certainly not worried about Apple's bottom line if a bunch of people steal F1 because it's not available to stream soon enough or whatever. But I also don't think your rationale fully works -- the availability of pirated works has a direct impact on the number of people that will fall into A or B.

Regardless, I think people should simply be honest about what they're really doing when they pirate content. And the idea that we're somehow entitled to these productions at a certain cost or time schedule remains wild.

 

[McScooby]

How is Apple's F1 release schedule "scummy," though?

And piracy very much is the consumers' fault. We're not talking about food, water, shelter or healthcare here -- people are not entitled to see whatever movies they want at a price and time of their choosing. If you feel like it's still too expensive or burdensome to watch F1, more power to you -- but that doesn't somehow entitle you to steal it.

Music (iTunes) was introduced to combat piracy, therefore it follows that TV's aim is the same.

To have a subscription service that many people subscribe to produce a film & withhold it from their subscribers (& offer it for sale before) seems to defeat the main purpose of why it exists in the first place.

I'm not advocating piracy, but the whole thing is counter to why streaming services were created in the first place, specifically 's.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But I also don't think your rationale fully works -- the availability of pirated works has a direct impact on the number of people that will fall into A or B.

Again ... marginal cost of nearly zero.

If they want to keep piracy at bay, make the prices and terms more attractive, don't gum it up with ADs and too many tiers and make the Apps and experience great.

THAT is what keeps mainstream Piracy at bay...

Trying to "lock it down more" and "limit the screens in use" and "screw with folks sharing a password with family" or too many "geo restriction hassles" or a hot garbage App experience..-- all of that pisses people off and you encourage them to seek other means.

For some faction of folks, there will always be piracy and they are not "gettable" as customers and not worth worrying about.

Anything else is like trying to "squeeze the air out of a balloon".

 

[Selena Agna]

Again ... marginal cost of nearly zero.

If they want to keep piracy at bay, make the prices and terms more attractive, don't gum it up with ADs and too many tiers and make the Apps and experience great.

THAT is what keeps mainstream Piracy at bay...

Trying to "lock it down more" and "limit the screens in use" and "screw with folks sharing a password with family" or too many "geo restriction hassles" or a hot garbage App experience..-- all of that pisses people off and you encourage them to seek other means.

For some faction of folks, there will always be piracy and they are not "gettable" as customers and not worth worrying about.

Anything else is like trying to "squeeze the air out of a balloon".

Exactly.

Let's not forget that one big factor contributing to the success of the iTunes store 20+ years ago was simply:
- it was less hassle than piracy.

There wasn't a global sentiment of "Oh no, we have to support the poor records labels".


Imagine you had the same situation as the movie streaming market: There would have been half a dozen competing stores, one for each major label. Barely any overlap in their catalogues. More than half of it region-locked. And now imagine you'd need to pay a subscription for every single one of them to listen to your whole music collection.
You'd imagine people who would usually be willing to pay for a song would just find it easier to pirate stuff to not have to deal with this kind of corpo nonsense.

 

[floydbot]

Music (iTunes) was introduced to combat piracy, therefore it follows that TV's aim is the same.

To have a subscription service that many people subscribe to produce a film & withhold it from their subscribers (& offer it for sale before) seems to defeat the main purpose of why it exists in the first place.

I'm not advocating piracy, but the whole thing is counter to why streaming services were created in the first place, specifically 's.

F1 wasn't created for the streaming service, though -- it was made for theatrical release.

 

[McScooby]

F1 wasn't created for the streaming service, though -- it was made for theatrical release.

By & for who?

 

[floydbot]

By who?

By Apple Studios -- if it was made for the streaming service than it would have debuted there. This is a strange argument -- if somebody feels that their ATV subscription fee entitles them to immediately see F1 then I'd suggest they misunderstood what they're paying for. Apple wasn't deceptive about it being made for theaters.

 

[McScooby]

By Apple Studios -- if it was made for the streaming service than it would have debuted there. This is a strange argument -- if somebody feels that their ATV subscription fee entitles them to immediately see F1 then I'd suggest they misunderstood what they're paying for. Apple wasn't deceptive about it being made for theaters.

I don't care either way. Apple decided to heavily promote it (esp at WWDC) as one of theirs (aside from the fact that it's them and WB that were the distributors).

But prey tell, what am I paying for, if it's not the high quality Apple produced content that I can't get anywhere else - unless I can?

 

[floydbot]

Again ... marginal cost of nearly zero.

If they want to keep piracy at bay, make the prices and terms more attractive, don't gum it up with ADs and too many tiers and make the Apps and experience great.

THAT is what keeps mainstream Piracy at bay...

Trying to "lock it down more" and "limit the screens in use" and "screw with folks sharing a password with family" or too many "geo restriction hassles" or a hot garbage App experience..-- all of that pisses people off and you encourage them to seek other means.

For some faction of folks, there will always be piracy and they are not "gettable" as customers and not worth worrying about.

Anything else is like trying to "squeeze the air out of a balloon".

This seems like it's having it both ways -- if the people that will pirate works are not gettable as customers, then there's nothing a creator can do to prevent that. So there's no keeping piracy at bay.

It also feels like all those "nuisances" are kinda skipping around the fact that it's still incredibly easy to just sign up for a streaming service to watch the content you want. If the cost is considered too high, fair enough -- that's why I don't sign up for many of the available streaming services. But that still doesn't justify stealing that content, or somehow puts the lie to the entire streaming business model.

 

[floydbot]

I don't care either way. Apple decided to heavily promote it (esp at WWDC) as one of theirs (aside from the fact that it's them and WB that were the distributors).

But prey tell, what am I paying for, if it's not the high quality Apple produced content that I can't get anywhere else - unless I can?

I think we're paying for literally everything else that is available on the platform. The idea that we're getting cheated because this one movie isn't available to stream without paying a rental fee until December seems like a big stretch.

 

[floydbot]

Exactly.

Let's not forget that one big factor contributing to the success of the iTunes store 20+ years ago was simply:
- it was less hassle than piracy.

There wasn't a global sentiment of "Oh no, we have to support the poor records labels".


Imagine you had the same situation as the movie streaming market: There would have been half a dozen competing stores, one for each major label. Barely any overlap in their catalogues. More than half of it region-locked. And now imagine you'd need to pay a subscription for every single one of them to listen to your whole music collection.
You'd imagine people who would usually be willing to pay for a song would just find it easier to pirate stuff to not have to deal with this kind of corpo nonsense.

As a veteran of the Napster era, iTunes definitely wasn't less hassle than downloading from the various pirate services. It simply provided a way for people to more easily get the content they wanted without stealing it or buying an entire physical album. It wasn't about saving the record labels, but it absolutely was about not stealing the work of artists.

 

[turbineseaplane]

As a veteran of the Napster era, iTunes definitely wasn't less hassle than downloading from the various pirate services.

👆 This is contradicted by this 👇

It simply provided a way for people to more easily get the content they wanted without stealing it or buying an entire physical album.

You've literally made the exact case of why iTunes was successful in combating piracy.

It was indeed more convenient and all integrated into how they'd sync onto a device for playback (or just listening locally).

I'm also a veteran of the era, and it was gamechangingly simple and inexpensive and just awesome.

It was also nice to not have to worry about the file quality and completeness you might be getting (or not) from piracy at the time. You also got correct and complete and metadata and artwork...many things we just take for granted now.

To this day, in my music library I have one particular song I've never been able to source a better copy of and it's got a portion of another song at the end of it. I could easily fix it, but I've left it for the nostalgia of it. 😂

 

[McScooby]

I think we're paying for literally everything else that is available on the platform. The idea that we're getting cheated because this one movie isn't available to stream without paying a rental fee until December seems like a big stretch.

No. What it proves is that don't have confidence in their platform especially the AVP - why not make it an exclusive there & if they don't have confidence, why should I?

It's not just F1, there's been others before.

The argument could be made that they're supporting Cinema, but countered by why release a streaming service in the first place, where does it end.

 

[floydbot]

👆 This is contradicted by this 👇



You've literally made the exact case of why iTunes was successful in combating piracy.

It was indeed more convenient and all integrated into how they'd sync onto a device for playback (or just listening locally).

I'm also a veteran of the era, and it was gamechangingly simple and inexpensive and just awesome.

It was also nice to not have to worry about the file quality and completeness you might be getting (or not) from piracy at the time. You also got correct and complete and metadata and artwork...many things we just take for granted now.

To this day, in my music library I have one particular song I've never been able to source a better copy of and it's got a portion of another song at the end of it. I could easily fix it, but I've left it for the nostalgia of it. 😂

No, that's not contradictory, although I should have said "a way to purchase" rather than just "a way to get it." Buying the music you wanted was more burdensome than pirating it -- at least for me and many people I knew, iTunes definitely cut into that gap but also definitely didn't eliminate it. But I also wasn't a Mac user back then. Obviously your mileage varied on that aspect, and fair enough.

It also wasn't inexpensive, particularly compared to the alternative.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It also wasn't inexpensive, particularly compared to the alternative.

$1 per song was super compelling ...
There were even many promotions getting songs to $0.69/track at times.

Being able to just "buy one song" was also a gamechanger at the time.

Obviously nothing is as cheap as "stealing" - lmao

 

[floydbot]

No. What it proves is that don't have confidence in their platform especially the AVP - why not make it an exclusive there & if they don't have confidence, why should I?

It's not just F1, there's been others before.

The argument could be made that they're supporting Cinema, but countered by why release a streaming service in the first place, where does it end.

I don't think it proves that at all. Not every piece of content is equal across all mediums. F1 was an incredible experience in the theater. Bad Monkey -- an Apple show I really enjoyed -- would probably not be.

Just because Apple chose to distribute their very expensive film via more traditional channels doesn't in any way mean they don't have confidence in their streaming service. I suspect making it available on Dec. 12 is simply a play for holiday subscriptions.

Again, if you don't feel like you're not getting your money's worth from ATV, fair enough -- but if you're basing that entirely on the availability of F1, then I think you misunderstood what you're paying for.

 

[Abazigal]

Music (iTunes) was introduced to combat piracy, therefore it follows that TV's aim is the same.

To have a subscription service that many people subscribe to produce a film & withhold it from their subscribers (& offer it for sale before) seems to defeat the main purpose of why it exists in the first place.

I'm not advocating piracy, but the whole thing is counter to why streaming services were created in the first place, specifically 's.

The problem is that the whole "bypass distributors and go direct to streaming" model is precisely why movies are increasingly unprofitable. It therefore needs to stop.

It used to be that a movie would be first be distributed via cinemas, then budget theatres, hotels / airlines, pay-per-view, physical media such as DVDs, Cable and finally free-to-air TV. That's potentially up to 7 different outlets by way that a media company could monetise their content (not including other avenues like merchandising). Which also explains why it's fine if a movie is not immediately profitable in the box office.

When you go straight to streaming, you risk collapsing 7 windows into 1, vastly reducing their ability to make money off a particular piece of content. And the reality is that movies are expensive, what more if you want good movies made possible by companies willing to invest time and effort into fleshing out the script and production.

It doesn't help that a streaming service is also extremely costly to run and maintain. Plus post-covid, it seems like fewer people are going to the theatre than ever. Throw in the massive opportunity costs, and it's little surprise why most of them are still not profitable (and likely never will be).

Many of you here will undoubtably go "Why should I care". If you have ever complained about how original content on services like Netflix and Disney+ seem shallow and devoid of "feel", that's why. These shows are not there to make money; they are simply there to fill a quota and keep subscribers on the platform. There's no reason to make them "good" when you don't have to worry about incentivising people to watch them in a cinema, or purchase a DVD box set to own. You watch it once, moan about how you have just wasted 2 hours of your life, and never go back to it again.

So the sad reality is that we are all already seeing and feeling the negative impacts of companies pivoting to a primary streaming model. The solution, ironically, is not to continuing pouring money into undifferentiated streaming services with massive direct costs, but to go back to what they are good at - producing quality content not available anywhere else, and which won't be devalued by people holding out and waiting for it to come to streaming. This is how you ensure that there will continue to be a steady stream of quality content available to watch. Not through piracy, but by voting with your dollar and showing that you are indeed willing to pay (the same way 20% of the world made Apple the richest company in the world by demonstrating that they were indeed willing to pay a premium for a premium experience).

Of course there will always be pirates, it's just a reality we are going to have to live with, and no, I don't think their existence ought to be acknowledged or celebrated at all.

 

[BoyRacer]

threesixty360 makes a lot of sense in post #50 below.

 

[McScooby]

The problem is that the whole "bypass distributors and go direct to streaming" model is precisely why movies are increasingly unprofitable. It therefore needs to stop.

It used to be that a movie would be first be distributed via cinemas, then budget theatres, hotels / airlines, pay-per-view, physical media such as DVDs, Cable and finally free-to-air TV. That's potentially up to 7 different outlets by way that a media company could monetise their content (not including other avenues like merchandising). Which also explains why it's fine if a movie is not immediately profitable in the box office.

When you go straight to streaming, you risk collapsing 7 windows into 1, vastly reducing their ability to make money off a particular piece of content. And the reality is that movies are expensive, what more if you want good movies made possible by companies willing to invest time and effort into fleshing out the script and production.

It doesn't help that a streaming service is also extremely costly to run and maintain. Plus post-covid, it seems like fewer people are going to the theatre than ever. Throw in the massive opportunity costs, and it's little surprise why most of them are still not profitable (and likely never will be).

Many of you here will undoubtably go "Why should I care". If you have ever complained about how original content on services like Netflix and Disney+ seem shallow and devoid of "feel", that's why. These shows are not there to make money; they are simply there to fill a quota and keep subscribers on the platform. There's no reason to make them "good" when you don't have to worry about incentivising people to watch them in a cinema, or purchase a DVD box set to own. You watch it once, moan about how you have just wasted 2 hours of your life, and never go back to it again.

So the sad reality is that we are all already seeing and feeling the negative impacts of companies pivoting to a primary streaming model. The solution, ironically, is not to continuing pouring money into undifferentiated streaming services with massive direct costs, but to go back to what they are good at - producing quality content not available anywhere else, and which won't be devalued by people holding out and waiting for it to come to streaming. This is how you ensure that there will continue to be a steady stream of quality content available to watch. Not through piracy, but by voting with your dollar and showing that you are indeed willing to pay (the same way 20% of the world made Apple the richest company in the world by demonstrating that they were indeed willing to pay a premium for a premium experience).

Of course there will always be pirates, it's just a reality we are going to have to live with, and no, I don't think their existence ought to be acknowledged or celebrated at all.

I'm sorry, I don't buy this.

Argylle was a bag of spanners & is estimated to have cost $200m vs F1 at $250-300m.

The problem that you have is that you're comparing it to what has gone before.

TV has to stand for something to gain traction in the streaming service wars (currently down about no. 8 with no back catalogue of note) & what better to keep thing as exclusives, the only place to see the content - the only place to watch the content.

As I said, make it AVP exclusive for a time, but don't dilute the brand by going external.

Granted F1 to date has brought in c.$600m & it could be argued it's a good advertisement for the platform, but if I know all the big film titles are going to cinema first, as I consumer I may pause on that AVP purchase; I might hold back on that TV/One sub, whereas it should be all in, both making the best content you can & limiting the audience, purposely.

IIRC the reason for external screenings wasn't that it was made for cinema (again, why should I buy the AVP) it was to get the awards nominations in, but I'd like to see be a bit braver.

It might not have the initial pull, but it will force people to think twice about that subscription, if the current streaming models don't work for others, make them work for yourself.

 

[Complex757]

I'm sorry, I don't buy this.

Argylle was a bag of spanners & is estimated to have cost $200m vs F1 at $250-300m.

The problem that you have is that you're comparing it to what has gone before.

TV has to stand for something to gain traction in the streaming service wars (currently down about no. 8 with no back catalogue of note) & what better to keep thing as exclusives, the only place to see the content - the only place to watch the content.

As I said, make it AVP exclusive for a time, but don't dilute the brand by going external.

Granted F1 to date has brought in c.$600m & it could be argued it's a good advertisement for the platform, but if I know all the big film titles are going to cinema first, as I consumer I may pause on that AVP purchase; I might hold back on that TV/One sub, whereas it should be all in, both making the best content you can & limiting the audience, purposely.

IIRC the reason for external screenings wasn't that it was made for cinema (again, why should I buy the AVP) it was to get the awards nominations in, but I'd like to see be a bit braver.

It might not have the initial pull, but it will force people to think twice about that subscription, if the current streaming models don't work for others, make them work for yourself.

Argyle was a piece of crap released in February and streaming services have changed how they distribute movies since then. Even Netflix is going to start giving some of their movies a longer theatrical window.

F1 was a summer blockbuster that made over $500 globally.

If you really wanted to see it, you could have gone to the movies.

 

[McScooby]

Argyle was a piece of crap released in February and streaming services have changed how they distribute movies since then. Even Netflix is going to start giving some of their movies a longer theatrical window.

F1 was a summer blockbuster that made over $500 globally.

If you really wanted to see it, you could have gone to the movies.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood the parlance - bag of spanners is not good, but cost 2/3 of F1's budget.

I was responding to the earlier comment that other services show cheap crap that is visibly bad & I was just pointing out that take it to the next level.

& I have seen F1, but not really my point which you've missed if you've read the thread.

 

[threesixty360]

They messed up with that clooney/pitt film, wolf last year. It was going to be a theatrical release but then Apple pulled that at the last minute and went straight to streaming. The director went mad and vowed not to work with Apple again or do a sequel I think.

Basically it didn’t move the needle on Apple subscription sales. So they’ve figured out finally that big name actors straight to streaming doesn’t really do anything but cheapen the perception of the content your getting from streaming.

What keeping movies in the cinema does is let a title “marinate”. And grow its perceived value. So now if you buy an Apple subscription in December you will feel that your getting a 20 dollar movie for free, one that people left their house to see on purpose and wasn’t just given to them as part of a package deal.

I feel like series like Severance or Ted Lasso sell streaming services better than just a place to get movies. And for the movie part to make sense you’ve got to know the movie before hand and that means the whole cinema/rent/dvd cycle.

Also, films get buried when they go to streaming. It’s prominent for a few weeks maybe on the front page but then it’s buried after that. Most people only look at what is on there first few scrolls. So the ease of streaming is actually killing are ability to see the good films and programming. Needs a change somehow.