'For All Mankind' Season 2 Trailer Shared on IMDb, with No Official Release

[Amazing Iceman]

Great show, but I don’t like long gaps between seasons.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

While Apple certainly has the cash for the long haul, they face some real challenges with the streaming business model:

• The month to month model makes churn easy for the consumer; especially since binge watching means you can consume in a month content that was originally aired over several months, lessening the need for long subscriptions
• Content owners are realizing the value of their content by setting up exclusive streaming sites; thus making it harder or significantly more expensive, for Apple to acquire licenses for a desirable back catalogue that will keep subscribers on the service
• If Apple would license their content to other services there is less of a need to subscribe to Apple TV+; so Apple can't make money off of licensing deals without eating away at their subscriber base, especially since the best licensing content would be the most popular must see ones Apple needs to draw in new subscribers
• If a show is a hit the stars will demand even higher salaries, so unless it's a big enough hit to draw in subscribers to cover costs the very hits that make Apple TV+ popular will be too expensive to continue

Apple could very well pull it off, the question is for how long will they be willing to lose money before deciding if its worth trying to make a hit.

I guess I put faith in Cook and company to be able to negotiate all of the intricacies you mention. They will have hired the best minds on the planet to plan it out. I certainly wouldn't bet against them.

 

[jlc1978]

I guess I put faith in Cook and company to be able to negotiate all of the intricacies you mention. They will have hired the best minds on the planet to plan it out. I certainly wouldn't bet against them.

I also wouldn't bet against them, and they certainly have the talent. They also have the money to stay in the game for a long time How much money are they willing to lose getting there?

Hollywood, however, also has some great brains who have been taking money from people who want to get into the business and putting in their pockets for years. An industry that makes billions while their products do not turn a profit will be a tough one to negotiate with for content.

Another challenge is making content is not like making phones and computers; there isn't a well defined supply chain where you can drive out costs and change product mixes as demand shifts.

Even buying a streaming service does not ensure you'll have access to licensed content beyond the current term, so Apple's cash horde is less useful than when they buy a tech company and get all the assets.

Even so, I'd still not bet against them surviving, but do wonder how big of a player they can be. At any rate, the next 5 - 10 years should be interesting.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I also wouldn't bet against them, and they certainly have the talent. They also have the money to stay in the game for a long time How much money are they willing to lose getting there?

Hollywood, however, also has some great brains who have been taking money from people who want to get into the business and putting in their pockets for years. An industry that makes billions while their products do not turn a profit will be a tough one to negotiate with for content.

Another challenge is making content is not like making phones and computers; there isn't a well defined supply chain where you can drive out costs and change product mixes as demand shifts.

Even buying a streaming service does not ensure you'll have access to licensed content beyond the current term, so Apple's cash horde is less useful than when they buy a tech company and get all the assets.

Even so, I'd still not bet against them surviving, but do wonder how big of a player they can be. At any rate, the next 5 - 10 years should be interesting.

Covid is the wild card in all of this. The Hollywood model is broken for the foreseeable future if not forever. It seems like it was quite an advantageous coincidence that Apple went into streaming right when theaters are not open. Reminds me of the restaurant in my small town that always just had a drive thru window and no seating.

Apple is also catering to a certain demographic that I think can afford and are willing to stay subscribed whether they use it or not, also dedicated to it, in short they will have super fans. They can also leverage their ecosystem which is unparalleled to any other on the planet to help keep it attractive.

I personally hate the selection of what's on Apple TV as a viewer. However as a shareholder I hold my nose as I realize this sort of progressive programming has an audience. Obama and Oprah... Boom! every woman like my mother wants it.

Put a glass of Chardonnay in her hands and she and Oprah will be saving the world in no time and that's money well spent. It's just too woke for me but that's what sells now. It won't be long before people with purple hair are replacing the original exhibits in the Smithsonian Aerospace museum with the props and pics of the people from "For all mankind"

I am just joking about there but I guess what I mean is the product is designed to make that sort of person feel the world is an okay place and they are helping. Much like Disney has it's own wholesome appeal. Apple touches all of the PC political buttons it needs to appeal to the idealogical sensitivities of their core audience. Nike does this sort of marketing very well.

It's right in the wheelhouse of the Apple evangelists.

 

[jlc1978]

Covid is the wild card in all of this. The Hollywood model is broken for the foreseeable future if not forever. It seems like it was quite an advantageous coincidence that Apple went into streaming right when theaters are not open. Reminds me of the restaurant in my small town that always just had a drive thru window and no seating.

True, but you still need to creaet content to stream it; and until studios can start filming again a back cataloque becomes even more important in getting and keeping subscribers.

Apple is also catering to a certain demographic that I think can afford and are willing to stay subscribed whether they use it or not, also dedicated to it, in short they will have super fans.

I'm not sure that demographic is large enough and dedicated enough to make ATV+ a viable long term product. If there is no must see shows at some [point they will leave the platform.

They can also leverage their ecosystem which is unparalleled to any other on the planet to help keep it attractive.

How? Content streaming is pretty much a commodity in terms of hardware, as Roku, Fire TV, et. al, demonstrate. I'd say Amazon, with Prime, is in a much better position to leverage a strength in one area to another than Apple.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

How? Content streaming is pretty much a commodity in terms of hardware, as Roku, Fire TV, et. al, demonstrate. I'd say Amazon, with Prime, is in a much better position to leverage a strength in one area to another than Apple.

Amazon is a great example, people don't buy prime for the videos they buy it for quick deliveries. Apple can do this through their hardware sales because of their strong branding. Let's keep in mind Apple doesn't even have to make a single penny from streaming and would be fine. Production issues are a big concern but that is for everybody else as well. If Apple just continues and can get close to breaking even they could simply buy up Hollywood as it goes out of business for the scraps and spare parts.

I still think you are underestimating the amount of users looking for the content typical of Apple TV+. Back in the day Apple never went for the most users they could find. They were a niche. This service can continue as a niche for a long time.

Apple doesn't have to beat Amazon at this it just has to hold its own. They just need to keep bundling it free with hardware until they hit their smash hit like Game of Thrones, which they eventually will. Apple TV first started as just a hobby and is now this far along. The people at Apple must feel they can create worthwhile content that is original. They have more money than God and could have acquired anything under the sun by now. The mystery of why they haven't in my opinion is they feel they can either do it themselves better or cheaper.

 

[rwxx]

I am just joking about there but I guess what I mean is the product is designed to make that sort of person feel the world is an okay place and they are helping. Much like Disney has it's own wholesome appeal. Apple touches all of the PC political buttons it needs to appeal to the idealogical sensitivities of their core audience. Nike does this sort of marketing very well.

One potential problem I see for Apple is that content isn't their core business and they have to be very careful about not alienating potential hardware customers. Disney and Nike have dealt with boycotts in the past. Whether those boycotts mattered at all (probably not) is another question. When you get into content (or do hot-button marketing, as Nike does), you run the risk of turning people off.

The only thing I've watched on ATV+ so far is a few episodes of FAM. I haven't been drawn to any of Apple's original programming. The trailers all have an over-produced, over-stylized Hollywood vibe to them, and I generally find that kind of content very boring and predictable.

I've made it through four episodes of FAM and it's just bad. Derivative, boring characters, meandering plot-lines, weak writing, and no real sense of tension or conflict. In other words, your typical big budget Hollywood fare. Yes, they are pushing lots of PC buttons, but the show is straight up boring and middle of the road. And I think that's what we can expect from ATV+ in general. Big budget creative mediocrity designed for mass consumption.
[automerge]1595872521[/automerge]

Apple doesn't have to beat Amazon at this it just has to hold its own. They just need to keep bundling it free with hardware until they hit their smash hit like Game of Thrones, which they eventually will. Apple TV first started as just a hobby and is now this far along. The people at Apple must feel they can create worthwhile content that is original. They have more money than God and could have acquired anything under the sun by now. The mystery of why they haven't in my opinion is they feel they can either do it themselves better or cheaper.

Apple TV started as a "hobby" more than a decade ago. I'm not at all impressed by how "far along" it is today. Apple could have reshaped television, yet they sat on the sidelines with their "hobby" for years while companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Roku did the heavy lifting. Now Apple is throwing its money around, hoping to buy credibility with big Hollywood stars. Personally, I think it's an ego-driven money-pit for them. The ATV+ launch says it all. They paraded a bunch of stars around and pitched ATV+ as the savior of streaming media.

I don't see the point of ATV+ if the shows aren't exclusive to Apple hardware. There's no way they are making any money on it, nor will they for years, if ever. Running it at a loss makes sense if that sells more hardware, but then why license it to third parties and eliminate the exclusivity factor? As I said in another comment, I think it's very telling that Jobs was smart enough not to start a record label despite Apple's huge success in music.

 

[technole]

One potential problem I see for Apple is that content isn't their core business and they have to be very careful about not alienating potential hardware customers. Disney and Nike have dealt with boycotts in the past. Whether those boycotts mattered at all (probably not) is another question. When you get into content (or do hot-button marketing, as Nike does), you run the risk of turning people off.

The only thing I've watched on ATV+ so far is a few episodes of FAM. I haven't been drawn to any of Apple's original programming. The trailers all have an over-produced, over-stylized Hollywood vibe to them, and I generally find that kind of content very boring and predictable.

I've made it through four episodes of FAM and it's just bad. Derivative, boring characters, meandering plot-lines, weak writing, and no real sense of tension or conflict. In other words, your typical big budget Hollywood fare. Yes, they are pushing lots of PC buttons, but the show is straight up boring and middle of the road. And I think that's what we can expect from ATV+ in general. Big budget creative mediocrity designed for mass consumption.
[automerge]1595872521[/automerge]


Apple TV started as a "hobby" more than a decade ago. I'm not at all impressed by how "far along" it is today. Apple could have reshaped television, yet they sat on the sidelines with their "hobby" for years while companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Roku did the heavy lifting. Now Apple is throwing its money around, hoping to buy credibility with big Hollywood stars. Personally, I think it's an ego-driven money-pit for them. The ATV+ launch says it all. They paraded a bunch of stars around and pitched ATV+ as the savior of streaming media.

I don't see the point of ATV+ if the shows aren't exclusive to Apple hardware. There's no way they are making any money on it, nor will they for years, if ever. Running it at a loss makes sense if that sells more hardware, but then why license it to third parties and eliminate the exclusivity factor? As I said in another comment, I think it's very telling that Jobs was smart enough not to start a record label despite Apple's huge success in music.

Whatever. Services makes a lot of money for Apple and that makes up for the smartphone shortfalls.

 

[jlc1978]

Amazon is a great example, people don't buy prime for the videos they buy it for quick deliveries. Apple can do this through their hardware sales because of their strong branding. Let's keep in mind Apple doesn't even have to make a single penny from streaming and would be fine.

Maybe, but the question is how long are they willing to throw money down the hole? Streaming unprofitbaly gains Apple nothiing.

Production issues are a big concern but that is for everybody else as well. If Apple just continues and can get close to breaking even they could simply buy up Hollywood as it goes out of business for the scraps and spare parts.

Except when they are not filming their costs go way down as they don't have to pay for production costs as it is largelyy a variable cost; while they still have the revenue streram from their back catalogue.

When production restarts, the whales will come back and finance pictures.

Buyiing a studio gets whatever content he studio owns but doesn't get them the creative types, such as directors/propducers/actors; unlike buying a tech company.

I still think you are underestimating the amount of users looking for the content typical of Apple TV+. Back in the day Apple never went for the most users they could find. They were a niche. This service can continue as a niche for a long time.

The question is the niche large enough to make money.

Apple doesn't have to beat Amazon at this it just has to hold its own. They just need to keep bundling it free with hardware until they hit their smash hit like Game of Thrones, which they eventually will.

Maybe or maybe not. At some point Apple will decide if they want to continue with content or simply sell what they have and move on.

As for Amazon, I agree they don't have to beat them but Amazon does have strengths in the market Apple lacks.

Apple TV first started as just a hobby and is now this far along.

I'm not sure how far along it is, as it's not that impressive in comparison with its competitors. The remote iis frustrating, and the box seems to forget passwords when an app gets updated.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Agreed on the remote control. That thing is a $^%&** failure on every level. They could improve the service 1,000x by simply launching a decent remote, one you can tell which way is pointed.

 

[rwxx]

Whatever. Services makes a lot of money for Apple and that makes up for the smartphone shortfalls.

Buying into the new Wall Street services narrative, huh? Most of the Apple's "services" income is derived from Apple Care, App Store fees, and iCloud storage, all of which are tied directly to hardware sales. That's hardly "whatever".

There's pretty much no evidence to support the idea that any of Apple's content services are profitable, much less very profitable. Of course, no one but Apple knows for sure, and Music is probably making a little money for the company, but that's it. News+ is clearly on life support. They don't seem to know what they are doing with Arcade. And it's way too early to judge TV+, but so far all they've managed to do is throw more than a billion dollars at content that has largely failed to impress anyone outside of Apple-centric fan sites.

 

[jlc1978]

There's pretty much no evidence to support the idea that any of Apple's content services are profitable, much less very profitable. Of course, no one but Apple knows for sure, and Music is probably making a little money for the company, but that's it. News+ is clearly on life support. They don't seem to know what they are doing with Arcade. And it's way too early to judge TV+, but so far all they've managed to do is throw more than a billion dollars at content that has largely failed to impress anyone outside of Apple-centric fan sites.

While I agree with your assessment, one advantage Apple has is its ~$200b cash and stock value. It can afford to throw money at things like News+, TV+, electric cars etc. since none of them require bet the company investments. Apple could walk away from News+ and TV+ tomorrow without any significant financial impact; which also makes it easier for them to keep them on life support to see if things turn around. ARM, IMHO, is a much bigger bet than content.

If I were running Apple, I'd look at buying Tmobile in an all stock deal and invest in building a fast 5G to home network. That would give Apple an end to end solution - hardware, content, network to deliver content they could bundle. They coulod then turn ATV+ into a service like YouTubeTV by licensing content and buying it outright if the price is right.

 

[4jasontv]

Stupidity and ineptitude?

Honesty, without drama.
[automerge]1595960039[/automerge]

Wait there are people that liked Space Force?

I thought For All Mankind smoked Space Force on pure entertainment value. Granted, they’re completely different shows.

I'll admit I turned off For All Mankind before the end of the first episode. I felt like the show was something of a dumpster fire. So smoked is a good way to describe it.

 

[rwxx]

While I agree with your assessment, one advantage Apple has is its ~$200b cash and stock value. It can afford to throw money at things like News+, TV+, electric cars etc. since none of them require bet the company investments. Apple could walk away from News+ and TV+ tomorrow without any significant financial impact; which also makes it easier for them to keep them on life support to see if things turn around. ARM, IMHO, is a much bigger bet than content.

I agree that Apple can throw money at content for years --- whether it turns a profit or not --- but why? It seems like ego to me, especially when it comes to TV+. The launch event was just horrendous. So much ego. And yet for all their Hollywood A-list bootlicking, none of their shows has resonated with the public at large. Maybe they'll land on a hit one day, but I rather doubt it.

I agree about the Arm move as well, but, unlike TV+, I think that will be very successful for them. Having all of their devices on the same hardware platform will only strengthen the ecosystem.

If I were running Apple, I'd look at buying Tmobile in an all stock deal and invest in building a fast 5G to home network. That would give Apple an end to end solution - hardware, content, network to deliver content they could bundle. They coulod then turn ATV+ into a service like YouTubeTV by licensing content and buying it outright if the price is right.

I'd drop TV+ altogether and stop throwing money away. I'd make enhancements to Apple Music. I spend 5x per month more buying lossless audio than I do on my Apple Music subscription. I think Apple is leaving a lot of money on the table by not offering lossless audio purchases. I look at Apple Music as a way to try before I buy. I think Apple should embrace this concept a bit more and offer Apple Music subscribers discounted pricing on lossless audio file purchases. There are many ways they could expand upon this through promotions, an updated version of the old record and tape club concept, etc.

I'd buy Sonos and get serious about home audio as well. I'd also stop being stupid about gaming and buy Nintendo once and for all. Apple and Nintendo are similar in many respects. Both rely on tightly integrated hardware and software. Both are trailblazers and rebels. And while neither offers the most cutting edge hardware (certainly debatable re: iOS devices), each company's products seem to be more than the sum of their parts. Finally, both have many (and many overlapping) fanatically loyal customers/fans.

Apple Arcade would become the most successful gaming service overnight if it was the exclusive home for all Nintendo franchises. Give the Nintendo engineers access to Apple Silicon for future gaming hardware. There's no more "family friendly" gaming company than Nintendo. I can see the Nintendo side of the Apple Store now.

 

[wigby]

Disney? Yes. HBO? Not so much. HBO generally does not rely on big stars. That has changed somewhat in recent years, but HBO takes a lot of chances. I agree with your perspective in general, though. I think your shopping metaphor is quite spot on. As someone who finds the Apple Store incredibly dull, it rings true to me. There are far more misses at the flea market, but the hits are always much sweeter. The Apple Store is brilliant, don't get me wrong. Apple has done a remarkable job of making tech accessible to the masses. From a techie perspective, however, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I hadn't watched anything on ATV+ until last night. I decided to watch the first episode of FAM. Despite being a big fan of sci-fi and a huge Battlestar Galactica fan, the premise of FAM just doesn't interest me. But I needed something new to watch and thought I'd finally give it a look. Obviously I can't judge the show based on one episode. I thought they did a good job of setting up the premise and introducing the characters. I feel like I've seen all of these characters before, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. For me the first episode had a bit too much of a nostalgic feel, which I found predictable. Period pieces are tough. The moon landing era has already been explored in some really great films. FAM will need to find an authentic voice to retain my interest, but I'm certainly going to give it a few episodes.

I strongly suggest you give FAM a try for at least a few more episodes. The big reveal at the end of episode 1 was obvious because it was in the trailer and all over the marketing material. However, as the season progresses, the alternate historical moments accelerate but are much smaller in scale to the original one. I believe that they will continue to grow exponentially throughout season 2 which will encourage viewers to study real history while at the same time, reveling in the possibilities of mankind at its greatest potential when everyone is truly given a shot at making history. It’s all very Star Trek of course but has a better chance to make a difference today than Roddenberry’s vision ever could imagine.

 

[David MacPhee]

I thoroughly enjoyed season 1 of For All Mankind, and can't wait to see season 2. Bring it on Apple!

I binged the whole Season one and it was really great. Took me bout 12 hours. Space Force was cute but this baby is serious!