CarmB

Whatever Apple does with the Mac Pro, it has to consider a price target and the needs of the pros who would be seeking out such a model. The Mac Studio appears to be powerful enough to meet the needs of a particular set of users. So in developing the Mac Pro, it needs to be designed for a somewhat different group of users. This will dictate exactly what choices Apple makes. Either the Pro will offer expandability that isn’t available in the Studio or it will deliver so much computing power out of the box that there would be no need for the vast majority of users to consider adding power beyond what is already there. Probably it will be a little bit of both. More expandability and a lot more power under the hood. I’m not one of those potential Mac Pro buyers. Really, I’m not even in need of something like the Studio. Definitely not in a position to properly set out what the Pro needs to be. But certainly Apple will focus on what those potential buyers want, select a price target, and deliver what can be delivered with the technology available. The Studio has picked off some of the Mac Pro buyers so it will be interesting to see what exactly Apple aims for with the Pro itself, 

By the way, the cynic in me suspects that the Studio is, among other things, a high-powered device intended to entice those with the means to buy more computer than they really need because the prospect of having all that horsepower under the hood is too good for some of us to pass up. The Pro is another matter. It needs to be focused on the needs of pros that go beyond what a Studio can provide. I know from personal experience that I overspent on computers at one time not to meet a need but to own something more impressive. Most distressing is that had I put a lot of that money into Apple stock back in the early 2000s  instead of Apple computers, I would be in a whole other place financially.

Netflix is counting on consumers being too lazy to subscribe/unsubscribe/subscribe on a rinse repeat cadence but raising prices so aggressively will motivate a progressively larger percentage of consumers to do just that. If enough do it, revenue per customer will go down, way down. Personally I think it’s a bad idea. In addition, charging so much more for 4K, when the other services include it as the latest standard, is seriously flawed. Netflix will come to regret this approach.

Once the US beat the Russians to the moon, interest in the moon virtually collapsed. Both the US and Russia regarded getting to the moon first as a glorified PR exercise. I think there is far more excitement about the potential of the James Webb telescope than any real interest from the general public in the moon or most other developments beyond our planet. It’s basically just an enormous rock circling our planet. No little green men or any other fantastical surprises. 

Regardless, For All Mankind isn’t trying to rewrite history. The producers are exploring an alternate scenario for the sheer fun that such an exercise can be. To think there is even the slightest attempt to rewrite history is utterly absurd. 

greginprague said:

Subscribers on a free term have to actively cancel/opt-out as opposed to actively renewing. I would imagine millions of lazy people are continuing to subscribe (as they do with many other services).  It’s only $5/month so easy to just ignore for a lot of folks.

Being only $5 a month, it’s also a reasonable value which will improve as the content is built out, provided Apple continues to keep the cost at a low level. Other providers are continually increasing the cost such that if Apple sticks with low cost and not dumping legacy filler into the mix to increase the price, it will become progressively more appealing to a wide range of consumers. It is and should remain a good value add-on to whatever other streaming content subscribers sign up for. That way Apple’s service will be able to flourish by being a compliment to other services, not a competitor to them. Besides, my guess is that most households are signed up for multiple streaming services.

What I like is Apple charging the least for its service and sticking with original content. Apple charges an amount that is suited to it being something you add on to whatever else you subscribe to because there is enough content to justify paying that little bit more. Truth is, I am focused on the original content offered by the assorted services so having a legacy element tossed in at a cost is not something I want. I prefer Apple’s approach and Apple is positioned to take that approach because it’s streaming service is a small portion of what Apple does. Good move, though. Lots of attention to the brand generated and long-term there is additional profit to be made from owning appealing titles. It’s not just revenue generated from subscribers. Media is also sold in other forms and long-term there is potential for more revenue still. Even if Apple pulled the plug on AppleTV+ after a couple of years, there would still be the potential of recovering its costs by offering its properties in other forms. Virtually no risk provided the properties themselves have merit, as some already produced do.