CarmB

appleinsideruser said:

charlesn said:

I've worked in television development and production for almost 30 years. I have close friends who have been working in development and production at Apple TV+ since it launched. So I'm going to be very kind here and state simply that this article, for the most part, is incredibly naive and ill-informed about how television, in general, and Apple TV+, in particular, work. But let's start with this sentence: "The show's frequent use of "owners," long and uninterrupted shows with a single camera..." It reads as nonsensical because it is. What it should say is, "The show's frequent use of "oners," long and uninterrupted shots with a single camera..." The term is oners, not owners, because it refers to ONE long and continuous shot. And the reason I start there is because if you can't get an obvious and common industry term right, you're an unreliable narrator for the rest of the story. 

Here's how it works: executives at the entity putting up the money to get a project made--whether it's a big movie studio, a streaming platform, a broadcast network, or a cable channel--get a say in how it gets made through a process of script readings and pre-production meetings before anything is shot, to make sure everyone is on the same page, and then notes are given after the show is shot on cuts as they come in. This isn't "meddling." This input is responsible management of anywhere from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars spent for a project. You don't just write a giant check and hope for the best. Good execs working with a good creative team will not see a need for excessive notes, what they do note will be actionable and there will be an explanation for why the note was given. Bad execs--and they do happen--seem to estimate their self-worth in how many pages of notes they can give, calling for changes in even the most infinitesimal details. There's even an industry term for this--execs who give voluminous notes like these are said to be "frame fucking" the production company. 

So, getting back to Apple: they're entitled to have a say because they're not only paying for the shows to get made, but Apple is pretty much #1 when it comes to the amounts they're willing to pay for a show they want. $200 million estimated for the second season of Severance. Lavish and expensive sci-fi series. The show Pachinko had four other bidders besides Apple, but Apple won as the only company willing to cover the entire production budget estimated at $13 million per episode. Compared to its competitors making shows and movies, Apple TV+ has an excellent reputation in the creative community for the amount of freedom it gives to creators and the trust it places in them. But what about confirmed issues with Jon Stewart and rumored ones with The Studio? Fair question! Well, consider why Apple is in the television business, which almost certainly isn't profitable. It's there to burnish the Apple brand and image and to provide another way to keep the Apple user base engaged with the Apple ecosystem. So considering those goals, why would Apple want to support a project that reflects poorly on the brand in some way or is upsetting to relationships and partnerships it needs for its businesses that actually generate the profits that make Apple TV+ possible? With Jon Stewart, who I think is great, being political and controversial is part of his brand, so I'm not sure why Apple greenlit a show with him in the first place. Someone at Apple didn't think that one through and that it ended badly isn't a surprise. With the rumored "meddling" in The Studio, this is another case where I understand where Apple is coming from, but makes me want to ask, "What were you thinking when gave this show a greenlight?!" It's a hilarious and savage satire of the studios that make television and movies, which is pretty uncomfortable for Apple TV+, since it needs great relationships with studios. I expect The Studio may end up with a slew of Emmy noms and maybe even wins for Apple TV+, in which case case any discomfort with the show will be forgotten!

AppleInsider said:

The show's frequent use of "owners," long and uninterrupted shows with a single camera, made it practically impossible to fulfill any constructive feedback. 

Appleinsideruser said:

I’d micromanage the

owners to make sure the oners are shot again if need be! Practice makes perfect. 🤐

I enjoyed and appreciated your insights, but maybe a little harsh to base them on the author's sloppy auto-correct typos.

Xed said:

CarmB said:

macxpress said:

CarmB said:

Who wants a pricey, heavy Apple Vision, Pro or otherwise? No consumer wants to pay more and be less comfortable. I can see a move to bring weight down to allow for a standalone premium Vision and then deliver both lower price and weight with a tethered version for the masses. Considering a capable Mac Mini can be had for well below $1,000, even if you had someone without a Mac to tether to, it might well be cheaper to get said Mini in tandem with the lower-cost Vision. Meanwhile there is an installed base of Mac owners who would be attracted to a far more affordable Vision that could be linked up with an existing Mac. Getting a tethered Vision in at a far more attractive price would be a game changer. 

I think it will get there. It again reminds me of the very first iPhone. It was an awesome new piece of technology that did things like nothing else on the market, even if it was entering a space already occupied by others beforehand...however it was very expensive at the time ($700-800 with a contract), was sorta thick and while it was awesome technically, it was also feature limited which I think is to be expected for a 1st gen product. AVP is no different here. 

Everyone is just way too god damn impatient and think everything Apple releases today needs to have the success of the iPhone of today straight out of the box, when even the original iPhone wasn't as successful as the iPhone of today. The MacBook Air is another good example. It was awesome for what it was in its original form, but was too expensive (cost upwards of $2100) and feature limited. Today, it's much cheaper, has great features for its intended market and is one of the best selling laptops, not only in the US, but the entire world! 

I would give AVP a few more years to mature, get VisionOS updated with more features and fixes, with a lower price it could be a successful product in the future. Too many people are taking the Steve Ballmer approach on this and don't see the same vision (no pun intended) as Apple does for this product. 

Without question the Vision Pro is a first step towards developing a compelling product. Really it makes sense for a first effort to be a pricey low-volume product in that getting a few of these into the hands of the general public is important in Apple securing feedback. When we reach the point that far more users get involved, it will be a more refined product that they will be experiencing. If Apple had chosen to not launch the pricier product, these past couple of years valuable feedback would have been missed. If past efforts is something to go by, a product like the Vision Pro will be regarded some day as invaluable as an Apple Watch. When that was first launched, I din't see it as an item I would seek out but today I'm on my second iteration and now I regard it as a must-have. 

Selling a cheaper item would get even more feedback from users. What is more likely is that Apple established a level of quality/functionality and price point that, from a psychological perspective, is much easier to go down in price and reduce in terms of capability than it is to go up in price even with consonant better tech.

Like so many of their products, they came out of the gate as best in show. Meta certainly isn’t but they do have decent amount of content since they’ve been establish much longer with the Oculus acquisition. MS HoloLens started at $1000 more than AVP, never had a consumer version, and have since stopped producing the device altogether from what I’ve read.

Once the content in there and production hiccups are worked out I suspect we’ll see cheaper versions of AVP which will open the doors to a much wider market.

macxpress said:

CarmB said:

Who wants a pricey, heavy Apple Vision, Pro or otherwise? No consumer wants to pay more and be less comfortable. I can see a move to bring weight down to allow for a standalone premium Vision and then deliver both lower price and weight with a tethered version for the masses. Considering a capable Mac Mini can be had for well below $1,000, even if you had someone without a Mac to tether to, it might well be cheaper to get said Mini in tandem with the lower-cost Vision. Meanwhile there is an installed base of Mac owners who would be attracted to a far more affordable Vision that could be linked up with an existing Mac. Getting a tethered Vision in at a far more attractive price would be a game changer. 

I think it will get there. It again reminds me of the very first iPhone. It was an awesome new piece of technology that did things like nothing else on the market, even if it was entering a space already occupied by others beforehand...however it was very expensive at the time ($700-800 with a contract), was sorta thick and while it was awesome technically, it was also feature limited which I think is to be expected for a 1st gen product. AVP is no different here. 

Everyone is just way too god damn impatient and think everything Apple releases today needs to have the success of the iPhone of today straight out of the box, when even the original iPhone wasn't as successful as the iPhone of today. The MacBook Air is another good example. It was awesome for what it was in its original form, but was too expensive (cost upwards of $2100) and feature limited. Today, it's much cheaper, has great features for its intended market and is one of the best selling laptops, not only in the US, but the entire world! 

I would give AVP a few more years to mature, get VisionOS updated with more features and fixes, with a lower price it could be a successful product in the future. Too many people are taking the Steve Ballmer approach on this and don't see the same vision (no pun intended) as Apple does for this product. 

danox said:

CarmB said:

That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 

You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……