- Last Active
mfryd said:22july2013 said:Can someone tell me why companies like this require a standalone app instead of using the built-in Apple TV app? I really don't know the reason, but I presume it's to spy on and track their users better than Apple allows.
- Integration with the Apple TV app only works on Apple TV. They still would need to maintain apps for other streaming boxes. An independent app reduces development time, and reduces maintenance costs as they can maintain a common code base across all platforms
- Having the same app across all platforms makes it easier to provide customer service, Your agents only need to be trained for one app.
- Having a separate app allows them to provide features not available on the Apple TV app. That can set them apart from competing services.
- The Apple TV app includes content from competing services. This can lead to views preferring those services and canceling this service.
For point 1, integration with the Apple TV app works across all Apple device (eg, Macs, iPhones, iPads) not just on the Apple TV hardware. That's a pretty big community. Probably 1,000,000,000 users, all of whom have the Apple TV app. By comparison Roku has a tiny 50,000,000 user base.
For point 2, while true, it's not the agents that the media company should be worried about - it's the users who pay them. I come to the Apple system for simplicity, and I don't buy from companies that tell me to learn a new way of business to use their service. Every moment that I used the Disney+ app I was frustrated. I kept saying to myself "How does this work and why did they do this?"
Point 4 doesn't seem to be a problem, it seems to be a solution. When I drive through a city, all restaurants tend to be next to each other. That's not bad for business, that's good for business. If it's offered through the Apple TV app I will know about it. If it isn't offered through the Apple TV app they have to reach me through ads, and I don't see many ads by virtue of the reason that I like to stream my media.
Are you denying that a standalone apps makes it easier to track users? You didn't refute that. I still suspect that that's the main reason. We may never know the true reason.
I'm surprised Hanks isn't listed in the article as a producer since he co-founded Playtone which is one of the production companies that made this film. If he's a major funder of the movie, especially if he holds other roles like Director or Lead Actor, then I consider him a producer regardless of the official credits. My guess is that Hanks is humble and doesn't like seeing his name in multiple roles on the same film which tends to be a sign of a bad film.
The average film made today has over 10 producers. Some have 30 or 40. Traditionally it's the people who funded the film or provided creative guidance or were founders or CEOs of the contributing production companies. But in these modern times, the owners sell the "rights" to certain parts of the film to different companies. They typically sell the theatrical rights to one company (or multiple companies for different countries,) the TV rights to another, the music rights to another (although more likely they purchase music rights from a different company), the streaming rights to others, and so on. The company at the top of this chain is usually the one that we call "the movie studio." But they all have a vested interest in the movie and share in the profit which means they have a stake in its ownership.