john-useless

charlesn said:

Now we'll be lucky to see S2 by early next year, which would be THREE YEARS after S1 debuted. 

I share your disappointment. Between pandemics, strikes by writers and/or actors, and/or internal production problems, having multiple years between seasons seems to be the new normal — except, in some cases, for series that air on broadcast television.

Most of my favorite new television shows nowadays are produced for streaming services, with eight to 12 episodes per season and seasons arriving two to three years apart. The entertainment industry has changed incredibly since the days when most new American shows were made for ABC, CBS and NBC, airing from roughly September through April, with reruns during summer and new episodes arriving reliably in early fall.

On the other hand, for sci-fi shows (particularly those requiring lots of post-production and special effects), I'm good with 10 episodes produced at cinematic quality than with a lot more episodes that are underwhelming. But I wish we didn't have to wait multiple years between seasons.

cia said:

Did Ringo play drums and Paul play guitar or bass on the re-recorded music backing Lennon's vocals? If not is it really a Beatles song or more of a John Lennon song?

Yes, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney recently recorded their parts for "Now and Then." George Harrison recorded a guitar part for the song back in 1995. To me, this is a true Beatles song.

It would be reasonable to argue that John Lennon is not truly "original" in this recording given that software was used to create a clean audio track of his vocals, removing Lennon's simultaneously-recorded piano performance. In other words, is this essentially an "authorized deepfake?" But given that the vocal track used here was apparently made from his 1977 cassette recording (or if not from it, at least to very closely duplicate it), and also that Paul, Ringo, and the families of John and George were all involved in the making of "Now and Then," my feeling is that this song is very much an authentic, original Beatles song.

As for the AI-based deepfakes that will likely be made in "the style of the Beatles" 20 or 25 years from now when they've all passed … not so much.

Minor errors in your story: "Free as a Bird" was released in 1995, not 1985, and "Real Love" was released in 1996, not 1988. I have good memories of the release of those songs because I worked in radio at the time … and as a young adult then, I never thought I'd have the privilege of talking about brand new Beatles songs to listeners.

You are correct in noting that "Now and Then" was originally planned for release in the same time frame. All three songs originated as demo recordings by John Lennon in 1977.

mike1 said:

To be honest, I'm waiting for a compelling reason to upgrade my Series 4. I suspect it may be when the battery finally gives out, but I still easily get a full-day between charges. Maybe the 9 will surprise me with something.

Yes, me too. I owned a "Series 0" and waited for the Series 4 to upgrade — and with features like fall detection, a bigger screen, ECG, raise-to-talk, vastly better processor and improved battery, it was worth it. Four years later, it still has fantastic battery life; it's very rare that my usage takes me to low-power mode near day's end.

The always-on, even larger displays, crash detection, and health features in newer models have tempted me … but not enough yet. I have zero doubt that I will upgrade eventually … but it's not clear whether the Series 9, 10, or 11 will be what gets me there.

Assuming Disney would willingly sell, I'm in favor of Apple buying ESPN under two conditions:

1. I don't want the monthly cost of Apple TV+ to automatically increase by $10 or $15 for all subscribers regardless of whether they watch sports. ESPN's (and Disney's) profits over the years came from the fact that cable/satellite/streaming bundle subscribers pay for ESPN whether or not they watch it. I like the price of Apple TV+ where it is now (even accounting for the price hike in late 2022).

2. Post-acquisition, ESPN should be an optional monthly add-on to Apple TV+, but the price needs to be reasonable. I would be willing to pay, say, $9 or $10/month for ESPN during college football season. The problem with this idea is that other recent media reports speculated that Disney would need to charge consumers $15 to $20/month to make ESPN available on its own (or as a new part of the current ESPN+ streaming service) just to break even on exorbitant sports licensing costs. Presumably Apple would have to do the same.

An even better thought is for Apple to make certain broadcasts available to regular Apple TV+ subscribers without a price increase or add-on requirement. For example, it would be fantastic if I could watch College GameDay on Saturday mornings and the national Saturday night college football game on Apple TV+ as a regular part of my subscription. Such an offering might entice a portion of Apple's subscribers to buy an ESPN add-on that would pay extra for access to every live football broadcast on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays.

I'm a sports fan … but I no longer subscribe to any cable/satellite/streaming TV bundles because I don't want my money feeding into the unreasonable escalation of the cost of college and professional sports. Yes, it means I miss seeing a lot of games unless they're on over-the-air TV … but that was the only choice I could make. Unfortunately, it would probably take another 100 million people making the same choice to actually change things.