Apple's streaming video hits iPhones, iPads, and Apple TV for free in early 2019

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    genovelle said:
    rcfa said:
    “Family friendly” :D

    Sorry, but don’t be in the world of being profitable, unless you’re trying to sell a gay CEO to evangelists, with family friendly content. You might as well buy the Disney Channel.

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    Apple: get used to it, you’re a channel, not a guardian. Leave the latter to the police...
    It’s sad that people are so lost that the very concept of having a channel that the whole family can watch together is stupid. Wow, just wow!

    Thank you for standing up for content that a whole family can watch together.
    bb-15
  • Reply 22 of 29
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,606member
    rcfa said:

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.
    Maybe that impulse isn't the best one to pander to?
    beowulfschmidtclaire1
  • Reply 23 of 29
    irelandireland Posts: 17,470member
    It makes sense. A lot of sense. The devices are what Apple needs to sell. Anything that makes the devices more appealing, including content, will do that. Like Amazon - content is basically a marketing expense. That's the difference between a traditional media company (where I worked for years) and Amazon and Apple. They don't need to make a profit on a show or movie. That is good and bad. It's scary for traditional media producers because they can only make content, or they must mostly make content that people are willing to pay for just to see that content. It's what I would have suspected. I'm not sure Apple would ever launch a stand alone content service for a fee. Sell devices. Make profit. Make stuff people can watch on the devices and only on those devices, maybe sell more devices. 
    Apple Music
  • Reply 24 of 29
    rcfa said:

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    I sense projection in this statement...
  • Reply 25 of 29
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 542member
    rcfa said:
    “Family friendly” :D

    Sorry, but don’t be in the world of being profitable, unless you’re trying to sell a gay CEO to evangelists, with family friendly content. You might as well buy the Disney Channel.

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    Apple: get used to it, you’re a channel, not a guardian. Leave the latter to the police...
    Is this comment a joke?  If not this is really sad.. 
    StrangeDaysbb-15claire1
  • Reply 26 of 29
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,201member
    genovelle said:
    rcfa said:
    “Family friendly” :D

    Sorry, but don’t be in the world of being profitable, unless you’re trying to sell a gay CEO to evangelists, with family friendly content. You might as well buy the Disney Channel.

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    Apple: get used to it, you’re a channel, not a guardian. Leave the latter to the police...
    It’s sad that people are so lost that the very concept of having a channel that the whole family can watch together is stupid. Wow, just wow!

    Thank you for standing up for content that a whole family can watch together.
    No one objects to such channels or thinks that doing so is oppressive. It is just that it is simply not a very lucrative, profitable enterprise. Sure, make it and make it available. Fine. Maybe donate to a non-profit, or support PBS or NPR. But it likely will not sell, and corporations don't make things that don't make money. While there is indeed a long game - make stuff that isn't profitable so as to boost sales of stuff that is synergistically, you need to make such an actual, not speculative, connection.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    slurpy said:
    It makes sense. A lot of sense. The devices are what Apple needs to sell. Anything that makes the devices more appealing, including content, will do that. Like Amazon - content is basically a marketing expense. That's the difference between a traditional media company (where I worked for years) and Amazon and Apple. They don't need to make a profit on a show or movie. That is good and bad. It's scary for traditional media producers because they can only make content, or they must mostly make content that people are willing to pay for just to see that content. It's what I would have suspected. I'm not sure Apple would ever launch a stand alone content service for a fee. Sell devices. Make profit. Make stuff people can watch on the devices and only on those devices, maybe sell more devices. 
    True but it seems like the opposite of what Wall Street wants. And with hardware sales basically flat hoodies Apple increase services revenues if their content is free? If this report is true what it tells me is Apple executives aren’t confident the original programming they have is good enough that people will want to pay for it.
    One can always expect the exact same concern-trolling, hand-wringing, sky-is-falling post from you. Same in every fucking thread, for the last decade it seems, no matter the subject matter. Impressive consistency, really. 

    yeah I thought the same -- amazing how RF can turn anything to suggest Apple is bumbling about, no idea what it's doing yet again, etc...
  • Reply 28 of 29
    eightzero said:
    genovelle said:
    rcfa said:
    “Family friendly” :D

    Sorry, but don’t be in the world of being profitable, unless you’re trying to sell a gay CEO to evangelists, with family friendly content. You might as well buy the Disney Channel.

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    Apple: get used to it, you’re a channel, not a guardian. Leave the latter to the police...
    It’s sad that people are so lost that the very concept of having a channel that the whole family can watch together is stupid. Wow, just wow!

    Thank you for standing up for content that a whole family can watch together.
    No one objects to such channels or thinks that doing so is oppressive. It is just that it is simply not a very lucrative, profitable enterprise. Sure, make it and make it available. Fine. Maybe donate to a non-profit, or support PBS or NPR. But it likely will not sell, and corporations don't make things that don't make money. While there is indeed a long game - make stuff that isn't profitable so as to boost sales of stuff that is synergistically, you need to make such an actual, not speculative, connection.
    Gosh, if only Apple and their crack-pot team of bumbling execs knew what you knew! Send them a memo, maybe?
    bb-15claire1
  • Reply 29 of 29
    claire1claire1 Posts: 483unconfirmed, member
    eightzero said:
    genovelle said:
    rcfa said:
    “Family friendly” :D

    Sorry, but don’t be in the world of being profitable, unless you’re trying to sell a gay CEO to evangelists, with family friendly content. You might as well buy the Disney Channel.

    Most people are sexually suppressed, frustrated, and they seek sex and violence/power to compensate for what’s missing in their life.

    Apple: get used to it, you’re a channel, not a guardian. Leave the latter to the police...
    It’s sad that people are so lost that the very concept of having a channel that the whole family can watch together is stupid. Wow, just wow!

    Thank you for standing up for content that a whole family can watch together.
    No one objects to such channels or thinks that doing so is oppressive. It is just that it is simply not a very lucrative, profitable enterprise. Sure, make it and make it available. Fine. Maybe donate to a non-profit, or support PBS or NPR. But it likely will not sell, and corporations don't make things that don't make money. While there is indeed a long game - make stuff that isn't profitable so as to boost sales of stuff that is synergistically, you need to make such an actual, not speculative, connection.
    I think if Apple is giving this content away for free the problem is little Jimmy turning on the TV to stumble upon some sex-crazed show about red-headed killer lesbians.
Sign In or Register to comment.