Jon Hamm laments not being on Apple TV+ in new ad for the service

AppleInsider

Apple takes a moment to highlight its star-studded programming for Apple TV+ in its latest ad featuring Jon Hamm.

Jon Hamm wants his own Apple TV+ show in latest ad

The short ad spot shows a frustrated Jon Hamm navigating the Apple TV app asking Apple, "did I do something to offend you?" As he browses, he highlights the increasing number of Holywood stars that have appeared in Apple TV+ movies and shows.

One moment in the ad had Hamm calling Tom Hanks, asking for a spot in his next Apple TV+ film.

Apple TV+ first debuted with a limited number of television shows and movies in 2019. However, the service has expanded to offer many shows across multiple seasons and several blockbuster movies. Apple recently celebrated its 763 award nominations and 190 wins across the service's lifetime.

Customers can watch content that doesn't contain Jon Hamm for $4.99 per month or via any tier of the Apple One subscription bundle.

Read on AppleInsider

lkrupp

In my opinion Apple has always aced it when it comes to advertising.

mikethemartian

“Don’s not a sales guy.” - Herb Rennet

winstoner71

What a fantastic ad. Makes me even happier to have the service. 

cornchip

At least he got in an ad ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

mac4mac

I must admit I was a skeptic when Apple TV+ was first announced, I mean NetFlix and Disney are very competitive and have massive media libraries, let alone all the other contenders in this increasingly crowded space.

Having just watched Macbeth (to quote another, “Shakespeare done right”) and Finch, and last week the show about how music changed the world in 1971. The platform has amazingly fantastic content. If you previously tried ATV+ And gave it up, try it again!

sdw2001

Mac4mac said:

I must admit I was a skeptic when Apple TV+ was first announced, I mean NetFlix and Disney are very competitive and have massive media libraries, let alone all the other contenders in this increasingly crowded space.

Having just watched Macbeth (to quote another, “Shakespeare done right”) and Finch, and last week the show about how music changed the world in 1971. The platform has amazingly fantastic content. If you previously tried ATV+ And gave it up, try it again!

100% agreed.  I panned it because the library was so limited.  But it’s cheap and has fantastic content.  Tess Lasso, For All Mankind, Greyhound, and so much more.  My prediction is Apple will buy another, soon-to-be-failing streamer’s library.  Here’s looking at you, Paramount+ or Peacock.  Start packing, CNN+.  🤣

crowley

lkrupp said:

In my opinion Apple has always aced it when it comes to advertising.

Not always

entropys

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

edited January 2022

georgebmac

Nailed it!

chasm

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

georgebmac

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

dewme

Very clever way to highlight Apple’s star studded lineup. The combination of Apple’s TV+ continuing to add quality content without jacking up the subscription price, Amazon Prime Video pulling in genres that TV+ doesn’t serve, Disney’s deep well of legacy content and great new content, and PBS Passport I’m growing weary of playing subscription price chicken with Netflix. With its frequent price increases and extra charges for 4K content, Netflix is daring me to kick it off Subscription Island. They are getting very close to be expendable.

lkrupp

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

georgebmac

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

That's true -- and I thought I said that.

My point is that, without that library of material,  Apple has to build their library from scratch.  And, while they are doing a very good job of that, Apple TV+ is not yet in a position to be the only subscription.

I didn't mean that as criticism of Apple or Apple TV+ -- just an acknowledgement that the service is not yet mature with a full library -- but it's getting there.

cornchip

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

Good point. What’s your assessment? 

crowley

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

Why?  If I’m paying for it I’ll compare whatever content I want to watch.  Couldn’t give a fig whether it’s originally produced or not.

fastasleep

sdw2001 said:

 Here’s looking at you, Paramount+ or Peacock.  Start packing, CNN+.  🤣

Pretty sure that’s not how licensing works. What makes you think ViacomCBS or Comcast is interested in selling those assets?

georgebmac

crowley said:

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

Why?  If I’m paying for it I’ll compare whatever content I want to watch.  Couldn’t give a fig whether it’s originally produced or not.

Not even all of Apple's content is originally produced (by Apple).   They bought the rights to Greyhound.  But, maybe that's an exception.  

But, as you point out, if it works, who cares?

I would love to see Apple TV+ follow the model they established with Apple News(+) or Apple Music.  But I'm sure they thought of that already.  I think it will happen eventually.  I hope it is sooner rather than later.   But, right now the industry just isn't ready for something like that -- the app and streaming side of the industry is just getting started with everybody jumping on board (NBC even created a duplicate news service just for streaming).  Things have yet to shake out.

strangedays

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

That's true -- and I thought I said that.

My point is that, without that library of material,  Apple has to build their library from scratch.  And, while they are doing a very good job of that, Apple TV+ is not yet in a position to be the only subscription.

I didn't mean that as criticism of Apple or Apple TV+ -- just an acknowledgement that the service is not yet mature with a full library -- but it's getting there.

Who said it's supposed to one's "only subscription" service? It's 5 bucks a month - less than the price of a pint of beer. I certainly get my $5 worth each month (tho I'm paying less as part of Apple One bundle). 

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

lkrupp said:

GeorgeBMac said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Content is definitely high quality,,even if a lot might not be of interest to a lot of people. 

Truth is though you use it a lot for a week or two, then don’t for a long time until something new of interest is added, then you binge again. There still isn’t enough content for everyone, and maybe won’t be for a while.

You’ve confused “truth” with “your opinion” there.

I think his opinion has truth in it.   TV+ is not yet a standalone service.  With even moderate TV viewing you soon run out of shows and episodes.

But it's still very new -- unlike most other services, they didn't start with a decades old library.  They're building it as they go.  And each month they build it a little bigger.   And, they aren't charging an arm and a leg for it -- so it's very feasible to use it to compliment other services while it grows.

Patience Grasshopper...

The others started out by buying decades old content. Try comparing original produced content instead. 

Why?  If I’m paying for it I’ll compare whatever content I want to watch.  Couldn’t give a fig whether it’s originally produced or not.

Not even all of Apple's content is originally produced (by Apple).   They bought the rights to Greyhound.  But, maybe that's an exception.

This is not remotely unusual. Networks bid on productions, some wrapped and some not. Creators shop out their stuff all the time.

edited January 2022