cloudguy

mike1 said:

saarek said:

Makes complete sense. Foxconn would make the hard parts such as all the microchips anyway, building the car frame, etc, would be no challenge for them.

Yeah, like microchips are the only hard parts. They don't even make those. A typical car is about 1,000x more complex than a cell phone. Not to mention physically larger with foundry requirements. Or if it's plastic, massive plastic tooling. Foxconn would need to far more and new suppliers than they've ever had to deal with before. Not saying it's impossible, but it will certainly be a challenge.

Not just that but there is the reality that cars ... can and do kill people. Lots of them. They are literally considered deadly weapons. Making them subject to a host of regulations that iPhones - mere consumer gadgets - do not have to deal with. Just meeting federal safety regulations alone makes manufacturing cars more difficult. But hey if you have the attitude "only Apple is capable of doing work that is really difficult and truly matters" then I guess you are going to see the world like this. Instead the truth is that Apple is incapable of designing and making the hardware components or writing the software standards that is used for their own products. Instead, Apple's brilliance has been primarily taking the more basic stuff done by others and assembling them in a way to make a desirable end product. Sorry, but car manufacturing is different, especially with respect to AVs and EVs, both of which are in their infancy. The former isn't even technologically or commercially viable yet and while the latter is technologically viable whether it would be commercially viable without extensive subsidies - both by the government and by sales of ICE vehicles underwriting their losses - is still very debatable. And I say this as someone who is very impressed by the improvements electric cars have made in a short time (I still remember where they were worthless for hauling big loads, more than a couple of passengers, or usage other than a secondary vehicle).

emcnair said:

Apple has $193.82 billion in cash. If they are serious about building a car, then they should just buy an existing automobile manufacturer. For example, Mazda is currently worth 5.44 billion.

1. In order to buy something the other party has to agree to sell which is something that Mazda would never do.
2. Not just Mazda but there are politicians involved. The Japanese government will never allow them to sell, and if you look at how Sony - now a fully American company (though they claim to be "global") is treating its Japanese workforce and consumers these days I do not blame them.
3. Not just the Japanese politicians. The global regulators would never approve of it either, for mostly illegitimate reasons - Apple would never be allowed to buy Beats in today's environment either, and Google outright defied them in closing their FitBit purchase because they know that their breakup is inevitable anyway - but for some legitimate ones too.
4. Finally, Apple has their reasons: their cherished reputation as a progressive, beneficial environmentalist company ... the "good" as opposed to the "bad" Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, oil companies etc. Were they to buy a company that currently makes ICE (internal combustion engine) cars, they would join the ranks of the evil polluters. However, scrapping the ICE operations in favor of EV ones would put a ton of high-salary employees out of work. It would also have Apple take on billions in annual losses on operations for years as right now the market for EVs is tiny compared to ICEs. 

So please, no talk about why Apple should buy this car company or that one. Any car company you name will run into at least 3 of the 4 barriers above. Apple really does need to go back to Kia/Hyundai with terms that both entities can agree on, which would be Apple paying Kia/Hyundai more money to be their manufacturing partner and licensing them some of their IP to be their design partner. The idea that any car company was ever going to accept being Foxconn was always absurd. 

tenthousandthings said:

Misogyny aside

Stuff like this is infuriating. Absolutely no references to her sex were made at all and nothing was said against her that hasn't been said against males tho take anti-Apple stances. As if Tim Sweeney of Epic Games or Google's Eric Schmidt gets positive treatment in these parts just because they are men or something.

CloudTalkin said:

There's absolutely nothing different about Apple's programming though... thematically or philosophically.  For every show on ATV+ there's an analog on the other major streaming services. 

You are only half right. For every TV show there's an analog on the other major services ... but the other major services have tons of shows that do not and will not have Apple TV+ competitors. And no, this isn't just "back catalog" stuff. It is new shows that were developed, greenlit and went into production since Apple TV+ started airing their own shows. Further we can follow Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix, Disney+ and even some of the smaller/more obscure streaming networks and see that their upcoming projects are aimed at a wide swath. Some are broad-based cross demographic projects while others - though more narrow and targeted - nevertheless target different demographics. (And when I say "demographics" I mean more than merely age groups and especially more than just buying the rights to "Peanuts" and "Fraggle Rock" so you can say "see we have kids/family programming too!") Meanwhile, nearly all the upcoming Apple TV+ projects are aimed at the same narrow demographic as their original batches.

Look, I know that you like the Apple TV+ programming. And that you wish that the other channels were more like Apple TV+ in their programming choices. But the reality is that you aren't the market. So if Apple keeps this up, 90% of the U.S. population will have no interest in their network. Also, the result of more outlets becoming like Apple TV+ in their programming would be even more alienation from Hollywood TV and movies in favor of foreign entertainment, YouTube and social media. This has been happening for decades already anyway: network TV ratings are a tiny fraction of what they were 20 years ago (which themselves were much reduced from what they were 20 years prior) and so are movie ticket sales. And when you put the declining TV ratings and movie ticket sales in the context of the fact that the U.S. population has actually doubled in that time you realize that things are actually worse. 

Streaming is actually capitalizing on this by producing entertainment that traditional Hollywood never would. (The Mandalorian, for example, was just an 80s action/adventure show akin to MacGyver or Magnum P.I.) By simply producing the same stuff that 90% of America has no interest in watching - what really looks like failed ABC and CBS pilots a lot of the time - it really seems like the folks who are running Apple TV+ do not realize what makes streaming viable in the first place. 

CloudTalkin said:

cloudguy said:

VaporStain said:

Pay $4.99 for a month of “Entertainment” on Apple TV+ ? or buy a Beer?

Decisions decisions.   

Beer me.

This won't exactly broaden the base of Apple TV viewers. They just keep piling on with more of the same stuff. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and Disney+ all have content to attract a wide variety of viewers. Sure, Netflix has Patriot Act and Chelsea Handler but they also have Adam Sandler, Kevin James and action movies like Extraction. Disney+ has Hamilton but they also have the Avengers movies. Amazon Prime: they have the usual awards bait stuff but they also have Jack Ryan. So long as their programming is dominated by things that Apple's own HR department wants to watch to pick up ideas on what to include in their training videos, Apple is going to have to keep giving the service away for free.

Serious question.  Have you ever watched any ATV+ programming or actually looked at the lineup?  I ask because your rhetoric doesn't match the programming that's actually there.  The following sentence is not a criticism, it's an observation:  Apple's programing is just as demographically formulaic as all the rest of the streaming services.   Apple has programming to appeal to young kids, teens, young/middle/older adults.  Just like the others. They have comedies, dramas, thrillers, documentaries, musicals, action fare and more.  Just like the others.  The content goes from G rated all the way to R rated.  Just like the others.

What the others have that Apple doesn't is an extensive back catalog of content.  Consequently, what they do have is hyper-examined and judge against a mistaken narrative that their content is HR "sanitized" for correctness.  There's nothing to support the narrative.  It has never been that way.  From day one, there has been more adult oriented content on ATV+ than any other.  Still that way now. 

Serious answer ... like you need to watch a project to know what it is about. An action movie starring GOPers like Arnold Schwarzennegar, Sylvester Stallone, Adam Sandler, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Kelsey Grammer or Chuck Norris is going to be pro-military and pro-law enforcement. By the same token, it is easy to tell where things like The Morning Show, Little America, Visibile and anything produced by Oprah Winfrey is going to be about. We also have reviews - including on this very site - and if any of these shows defied expectations instead of confirming them, we would know by now. Adult-oriented content ... compare the number of adults who watch "The Mandalorian" and "WandaVision" to the ones who watch "Girls" and "Killing Eve" ... it isn't close. 

The others don't merely have "an extensive back catalog of content" but instead are still to this day actively producing the sort of broad-based content that Apple isn't. Like Apple couldn't have signed deals with the likes of Adam Sandler, Kevin James, David Ayer, Eli Roth etc. Or reboots - not subversive ones mind you - of popular 80s and 90s entertainment like Fuller House. Here is what you need to realize: at one point Netflix had BoJack Horseman - a modern deconstructive parody of 80s sitcoms - and Fuller House - a faithful reboot of the "worst" example of the sort of show that BoJack Horseman savagely skewered - on at the same time. Critics loved the former as a great example of your "adult entertainment" but audiences - almost exclusively adults who grew up watching the original show - loved the latter. They were aimed at vastly different demographics but were both hits. So  you had one demographic cohort subscribing to Netflix to see BoJack Horseman but an entirely different one subscribing to see Fuller House.

The folks who run Apple TV+ on the other hand would fall over themselves for the chance to make another BoJack Horseman tomorrow but would never greenlight Fuller House, those Adam Sandler projects or the current Kevin James NASCAR show in a million years. Even Ted Lasso - the closest thing on Apple TV besides Defending Jacob that anyone can claim for a broad based mainstream show - is still about a London soccer coach who is the typical modern fails upward/succeeds in spite of himself male character. Would Apple TV+ ever produce a revival of "Coach", about an American football team set in the midwest about a guy who is actually successful in his professional and personal life because he is good at both? Despite its potential for attracting a huge audience from multiple demographics - as the original show did during its 9 year run - nope. Because the folks in Cupertino believe that a show to teach kids Taoism and Buddhism (Stillwater) is ... more socially important I guess.