charlesn
About
- Username
- charlesn
- Joined
- Visits
- 117
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 6,573
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,493
Reactions
-
Apple TV+ isn't micromanagement hell -- for some creatives
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!
-
Apple Watch Series 11: What's expected to arrive this fall
It has been this way since January 2024 with no indication that it's killing Apple Watch sales. The simple fact is that if you want a Watch that will integrate seamlessly with your primary Apple apps--iMessage, email, calendar, Apple Music, etc--it's your one and only choice.cpsro said:Lack of a blood oxygen sensor will be a killer for many people.
linkman said:
No. In fact, to be honest, even cuff measurements with a high-quality device can be tricky as far as getting consistent, accurate measurements. Position of your arm, placement of the cuff, time of day and current emotional state when tested can all skew your reading from "accurate." I've had back-to-back readings in a hospital vary by 20 points when I asked for a re-test because I knew the initial very high reading had to wrong since I regularly monitor my own BP.Is there a way to obtain a reasonably accurate blood pressure measurement without some sort of cuff?
AS USUAL, we can never expect significant changes, if any, in the next revision after Apple has refreshed a product. The Watch 10 got a refreshed design with a new chip and a new-ish display, so this year's "new" hardware will likely be identical. Any changes will come via the OS. The mystery card is the Ultra, now essentially unchanged for 3 years. Heck, Apple didn't even bother with an Ultra 3 last year, it just repeated the 2 with the added black colorway. From what I've read, even the "new" Apple Watch chips each year haven't really varied a whole lot since the series 6 or 7. Nor do I see a reason for a new, truly faster chip unless there's some new functionality that would require the added processing power. But with current functionality, the Watch is as snappy and fast as it needs to be.
-
Trump blinks: Floats suggestion that Apple might get a tariff exemption
Really? Headline story from The Economist, Oct 2024: "The American Economy: The Envy of the World." Subhead:9secondkox2 said: The status quo is not sustainable without ceding our economy and leading status in the world."The American economy has left other rich nations in the dust." THAT was our economy's story six months ago. Record high stock market, strong GDP growth, near record low unemployment, no recession is sight and inflation steadily easing per the benchmarks set by the Fed. If by "status quo," you mean Trump's insanity that not only tanked the stock market, but rocked the market for US Treasuries as of yesterday--yes, I totally agree, THAT is not sustainable! Do you have ANY idea what happens if T-bills are no longer seen as such a safe haven and we have to start paying higher interest rates on them to attract buyers (as was happening yesterday) to finance our national debt and deficit spending? It's game over, my friend. Point, set, match--the US is screwed. But Trump and his staff are so incompetent, they hadn't thought that through and didn't see it coming until it happened.
And here's the thing: I would have no argument had Trump made a reasoned case to get better trade agreements with a tightly targeted set of countries. And then set about negotiations to make that happen, retaliating with tariffs if necessary. China would certainly lead that list. But what did he do? First, he prematurely tore up and refused to abide by the USMCA agreement that HE, himself, negotiated as a supposedly "much better deal" than NAFTA--in reality, it barely changed NAFTA, but whatever--and then he proceeded to knife both of our closest and most important trading partners in the back, no negotiations. But that was just the appetizer. Trump's main course was declaring a trade war on the entire world at once, including uninhabited islands, putting America in the untenable negotiating position of suddenly being alone as the global supervillain. If your goal is to drive better trade deals, and especially if your goal is to force China to the table, there couldn't be a more dumb and moronic way to go about that than turning the whole world against you at once, And that's exactly what Trump did.
Here in NYC, I've had a lifelong front row seat to Trump and none of this surprises me. This is who he has always been. An equal opportunity con man and grifter who has screwed over blue collar workers, investors, students to his bogus university, banks and even donors to his now legally shuttered Donald J. Trump Foundation charity. What kind of self-proclaimed multi-billionaire steals and spends charity donations on himself? It's mind-boggling to me that the aggrieved working class sees him as their savior, when he just sees them as an endless source of grift, shamelessly selling them literally anything from gold lamé high-tops to bibles to meme coins to watches, etc, etc. Like any good con man--and he may well be the best who ever lived--he talks a good game and sounds like he's on your side while he's turning you upside down and shaking the last coins from your pocket. Most if not all of the high profile billionaires in this country have built businesses of real significance of one type or another that have made many people rich and given many, many more people than that good jobs and comfortable lives. Trump has built nothing and done nothing to spread the wealth he has enjoyed, devoting his life only to the enrichment of himself and his family at the expense of everyone else he has screwed along the way.
-
Apple doesn't appear to have plans to revive the iPhone mini
Anytime you'd like to present your "evidence," I'm ready! My evidence is based on a few simple points: 1) Publicly owned, for profit companies don't cancel profitable products that are selling well. 2) Research companies like CIRP that purport to track sales of specific products reported that the Mini was not selling well compared to the rest of the iPhone lineup. 3) No major phone maker is offering a premium mini phone--if the market for such a phone was there, either Samsung, Google or Apple would pursue it.mattinoz said:
Your assumption here is it was a sales problem but evidence says otherwise.charlesn said:
Please. Stop your descent into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. It's really pretty simple: Apple is a publicly owned, for profit company that is in the business of making products that sell well enough to generate sufficient profit to justify keeping them in the product lineup. It keeps making the products that earn their keep and stops making the ones that don't. End of story, The Mini would still be in the lineup if it sold in sufficient numbers, and the story of what one dealer told you for a product that sells globally is absolutely meaningless. Do you think Apple is happy about EOL'ing a new product after just two cycles? Absolutely not. It's questionable if they even made back their costs for research and development of the Mini, costs for tooling and production, design, marketing, etc. after just two years. This isn't to say that the Mini didn't have its fans, and a lot of them, just not enough to make it worthwhile to keep around. Notice also that no major Android manufacturer, even though they seem to run with every new gimmick feature they can dream up, has stepped in to produce a truly premium mini phone--there's no high end Galaxy or Pixel Mini. That's further confirmation that a sufficiently big market for a premium mini phone is simply not there. It's also worth noting that Apple's low-priced and smaller iPhone SE was always the worst selling model in the whole iPhone lineup.prof said:hmlongco said:
People say they want one. Apple makes one. People don't buy one. Apple stops making one.
Rinse. Repeat.
People did buy it, one dealer I know told me that they sold more iPhone Minis months for months than any other non-Apple or Samsung brand model. Sometimes it's not entirely clear why Apple ditches a product; all bad sales rumours are only unconfirmed speculation.
-
Apple doesn't appear to have plans to revive the iPhone mini
The Mini was available for two model years and Apple is famously driven by its vaunted customer data, so I'm sure its sales projections for the Mini took into account upgrade cycle timelines and that not everyone who might want one would be willing to buy it during that period. When you consider what a painful and expensive decision it had to be to cancel the Mini after just two years, you can only conclude that the phone so badly missed its sales projections, with no sign that things would improve, that Apple decided to take the hit rather than continue with it. For a new product to get axed this quickly is a VERY rare occurrence for Apple. Honestly the last one I can remember was the infamous "toilet seat" iBook which lasted only two years from July 1999 to August 2001. The original HomePod lasted three years. And although there was only one model ever released of the "trash can" Mac Pro, it remained in the lineup for six years.hmlongco said:
On a serious note, if Apple makes one they need to commit to making one for more than just a year. People are on multi-year upgrade cycles, and even people who might want one might be off-cycle and unable to buy at that point in time.
Secondarily, they also need to make sure it has adequate battery life, something that's plagued mini phones for years now.
