WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.920 Music. 00:00:12.768 --> 00:00:19.528 Hello, welcome to TV Plus Talk. We've made it to summer and that means there's 00:00:19.528 --> 00:00:23.308 a lot of TV to talk about because we've got six months worth of stuff on Apple TV Plus. 00:00:23.388 --> 00:00:27.768 There's a lot of stories happening in the kind of summer lull in Hollywood and 00:00:27.768 --> 00:00:31.148 so there's a lot to discuss with my friend Chuck Joyner. Hello. 00:00:32.108 --> 00:00:35.808 Hello, Charlotte. It's great to see you as always. And yes, we have made it 00:00:35.808 --> 00:00:38.808 partway through summer and I am burned to a crisp. 00:00:38.808 --> 00:00:41.828 We i'm i'm looking actually forward to 00:00:41.828 --> 00:00:45.088 the first frost i think i can't 00:00:45.088 --> 00:00:48.408 get on board with this um i'm i'm 00:00:48.408 --> 00:00:52.908 very close pro son because we don't get much of it here what there's sort of 00:00:52.908 --> 00:00:57.328 one story that our whole conversation centers on really and that is this idea 00:00:57.328 --> 00:01:02.848 that came through bloomberg but it's sort of percolated out and it's something 00:01:02.848 --> 00:01:05.128 you and i've discussed basically since we started the show, 00:01:05.508 --> 00:01:09.848 is that Apple is apparently in talks to license more films from Hollywood. 00:01:09.868 --> 00:01:13.548 That's according to Lucas Shaw and Thomas Buckley at Bloomberg News. 00:01:15.788 --> 00:01:19.928 Now, I've got strong opinions on this. It won't shock you to know, but what's your take? 00:01:21.288 --> 00:01:24.648 I think my take is the same as it's been. 00:01:24.788 --> 00:01:30.308 It's a nice sort of expansion to Apple TV Plus and to the original content. 00:01:30.988 --> 00:01:37.548 It leverages Hollywood. And these things, these films are available for a limited time only. 00:01:38.308 --> 00:01:43.188 And there are times I feel like, Charlotte, with all due respect to all the 00:01:43.188 --> 00:01:46.988 streaming services, we're almost running into a problem where there's too many 00:01:46.988 --> 00:01:50.308 choices, that you get frozen by too many choices. 00:01:50.528 --> 00:01:54.568 And so the idea that, okay, Saturday Night World's around, and I decide that 00:01:54.568 --> 00:01:59.568 I want to watch a video or a movie, I should say, and I'm a TV Plus subscriber, 00:01:59.868 --> 00:02:05.168 then I can look at it and say, well, I have these 50, give or take, to choose from. 00:02:05.448 --> 00:02:09.268 The odds are pretty good that I'm going to find at least one instead of looking 00:02:09.268 --> 00:02:15.168 at these 5,000 options I have and just going to bed and saying I can't make a decision. Okay. 00:02:16.621 --> 00:02:21.521 So I think this is actually a real strategic error from Apple if they go down this path. 00:02:22.281 --> 00:02:27.841 Because I think Apple TV Plus has been so distinctive in that it's only originals. 00:02:28.641 --> 00:02:31.781 And it's finally getting that message out. How many times have you and I had 00:02:31.781 --> 00:02:34.141 conversations with people where they're like, oh, yeah, I've heard about Apple 00:02:34.141 --> 00:02:35.701 TV Plus, but there's nothing on it, is there? 00:02:36.381 --> 00:02:42.521 And actually, there's now, as we've discussed, lots of a fantastic back catalogue. 00:02:42.521 --> 00:02:46.501 And I think, actually, Apple should be embracing that. 00:02:46.941 --> 00:02:50.961 There's so many times I hear people talking about Apple as the HBO of streaming, 00:02:51.161 --> 00:02:54.021 of TV pluses, the kind of HBO equivalent. 00:02:54.301 --> 00:02:57.261 And that's the niche it's put itself in. 00:02:57.541 --> 00:03:00.521 It doesn't need to buy other people's casts off. 00:03:00.781 --> 00:03:04.881 Do you know what I mean? It's like it's building after taking time, 00:03:04.981 --> 00:03:07.021 but it's building this reputation now. 00:03:07.121 --> 00:03:09.081 Why would you risk that? 00:03:10.561 --> 00:03:16.761 It's a great point. And I don't completely disagree with it. I see it almost as. 00:03:16.941 --> 00:03:18.941 I'm going to sit and drink tea in my righteousness. 00:03:20.561 --> 00:03:26.161 I don't have any tea, so I guess I'm not righteous. I see it as an expansion 00:03:26.161 --> 00:03:27.981 of what Apple TV Plus can offer. 00:03:29.901 --> 00:03:32.981 And unfortunately or fortunately, depending on the way you look at it, 00:03:33.021 --> 00:03:35.401 people like a little bit more variety. 00:03:35.401 --> 00:03:38.161 And so they're going to offer a little more 00:03:38.161 --> 00:03:41.481 variety just beyond what the original content is 00:03:41.481 --> 00:03:47.101 this gives them the opportunity to not i don't think it dilutes their programming 00:03:47.101 --> 00:03:53.081 i think it just adds to it so that maybe i might be more likely to come and 00:03:53.081 --> 00:03:58.441 say let's see what's on apple tv plus i'm looking for a film but hey you know 00:03:58.441 --> 00:04:00.741 what that tv show over there but meaning to check Check that out. 00:04:01.041 --> 00:04:04.821 And so it may actually bring folks there. 00:04:06.281 --> 00:04:09.861 Financially, I'm not sure how it's going to work, and neither one of us are 00:04:09.861 --> 00:04:11.981 privy to those parts of the discussion. 00:04:12.581 --> 00:04:18.341 But I don't see it as a bad thing. I see it just almost as a test case if this 00:04:18.341 --> 00:04:23.441 works out, and they will have all the numbers so they'll know whether it's a viable thing. 00:04:25.047 --> 00:04:28.647 Look, Apple is starting to make a really distinctive name itself. 00:04:28.787 --> 00:04:32.347 Yes, there's the HBO kind of style originals, which we just talked about, 00:04:32.467 --> 00:04:34.627 but there's also it's doing live sport, right? 00:04:34.767 --> 00:04:37.927 Now, that's a pretty compelling case for a streaming service, 00:04:38.107 --> 00:04:42.987 strong, beautifully produced originals and live sport. 00:04:44.787 --> 00:04:47.627 I don't see why they're playing around with it. 00:04:48.927 --> 00:04:56.807 I think it's too knee-jerk. Yeah, but in my opinion, they're doing a great job on the TV series. 00:04:57.307 --> 00:05:02.927 But are they doing as good a job, and it's obviously a bigger commitment, on films? 00:05:03.787 --> 00:05:10.867 And I think that there's still a distinction between those two media types with folks. 00:05:10.967 --> 00:05:13.767 Yeah, I think that's a fair point. You know, somebody may want to sit down on 00:05:13.767 --> 00:05:16.767 Saturday night, watch that two hour movie, and then it's done. 00:05:16.907 --> 00:05:20.527 The story is over, and they can move on to whatever they're going to do Sunday morning. 00:05:20.927 --> 00:05:26.847 But if I watch two, maybe three, maybe four episodes of a TV show on Saturday 00:05:26.847 --> 00:05:29.207 night, I still have more to do. 00:05:29.867 --> 00:05:34.467 And so I just, it's a different kind of viewing. 00:05:36.147 --> 00:05:38.907 I think you need to get out on Saturday night. I think that's what we're learning 00:05:38.907 --> 00:05:43.367 from this discussion, Chuck. well that's i'm not arguing that charlotte not 00:05:43.367 --> 00:05:50.587 at all no what i i think it's a really really valid point you're making about um. 00:05:53.487 --> 00:05:57.027 About movies the difference between movies and films and 00:05:57.027 --> 00:06:00.287 i think it's also fair which i think is what you were getting at right which 00:06:00.287 --> 00:06:03.487 is that apple tv plus has had hit tv shows 00:06:03.487 --> 00:06:06.727 you know obviously there's tad lasso but 00:06:06.727 --> 00:06:10.267 there's also presumed innocent people seem to be really liking um 00:06:10.267 --> 00:06:13.167 there's you know there's been a host of 00:06:13.167 --> 00:06:16.187 films of tv shows that have really started to 00:06:16.187 --> 00:06:19.767 make an impact one way or the other um and 00:06:19.767 --> 00:06:22.527 i don't slow horses you know is 00:06:22.527 --> 00:06:27.447 another example i always like to use and i don't think there has been an apple 00:06:27.447 --> 00:06:32.227 film that has made the same impact you know you and i both really like tetris 00:06:32.227 --> 00:06:39.487 if i remember but it didn't get huge mainstream coverage did it for what was 00:06:39.487 --> 00:06:40.847 a really good, enjoyable film. 00:06:41.882 --> 00:06:46.662 It did not show up. And we can point to a number of those films that I think 00:06:46.662 --> 00:06:50.022 we've both enjoyed that haven't gotten the major league attention. 00:06:50.642 --> 00:06:55.122 What I have never bought. Sorry to interrupt, but as we're having this conversation, 00:06:55.322 --> 00:06:59.262 we do also need to put in contest that Apple TV Plus became the first, 00:07:00.022 --> 00:07:03.982 streaming service to win the Best Picture Oscar, albeit with a film it purchased 00:07:03.982 --> 00:07:05.962 at Sundance, not created in-house. 00:07:07.242 --> 00:07:11.422 But it still is the Apple TV Plus brand. Absolutely. 00:07:12.122 --> 00:07:17.002 But I haven't done the math, and I'm not sure the numbers are even available, 00:07:17.282 --> 00:07:22.962 to really decide, okay, if I'm going to invest X number of millions of dollars 00:07:22.962 --> 00:07:29.222 in a TV show versus X number of million dollars in a film or a movie, 00:07:29.402 --> 00:07:36.082 how many hours of content am I buying for that, let's say, $100 million? 00:07:36.082 --> 00:07:39.242 Million and so you know and 00:07:39.242 --> 00:07:42.062 and there's one other thing that has been the rumors 00:07:42.062 --> 00:07:44.742 of the word has been making the rounds is that 00:07:44.742 --> 00:07:50.082 apple tv plus has been looking to do some budget cuts um and so and you and 00:07:50.082 --> 00:07:54.522 i've had this discussion before they threw like everyone else in hollywood well 00:07:54.522 --> 00:08:01.042 yeah but they threw a lot of money into some some films and they they hit big 00:08:01.042 --> 00:08:04.022 with the award shows and the award 00:08:04.162 --> 00:08:09.562 uh ceremonies but they didn't maybe hit as big as they would have liked to with the audiences, 00:08:11.062 --> 00:08:16.522 so but particularly post pandemic i think you know the tom hanks one did well 00:08:16.522 --> 00:08:21.822 in the pandemic when it couldn't be shown in cinemas there hasn't for the last 00:08:21.822 --> 00:08:26.362 since coda because i do think we have to reiterate what a huge success that 00:08:26.362 --> 00:08:29.102 was and what a huge moment that was there hasn't been a 00:08:29.242 --> 00:08:33.682 blockbuster Apple movie, even the ones that have sort of gone into theatres. 00:08:35.932 --> 00:08:40.392 So let me ask you this charlotte do you think that apple that apple tv plus 00:08:40.392 --> 00:08:44.832 is in the business of making blockbusters or do you think they are still going 00:08:44.832 --> 00:08:48.952 back to tim cook's original introduction about we want to tell great stories 00:08:48.952 --> 00:08:53.092 and great stories don't necessarily translate to blockbusters, 00:08:54.312 --> 00:08:57.472 honestly i've really come to the conclusion while i was thinking about this 00:08:57.472 --> 00:09:01.612 whole thing about buying a back catalog i've really come to the conclusion that 00:09:01.612 --> 00:09:06.092 apple tv plus just needs to make itself hbo The more I think about it, 00:09:06.132 --> 00:09:08.212 the more convinced that I'm right, I become. 00:09:09.752 --> 00:09:14.292 And that doesn't mean every show needs to be another slow horses or presumed 00:09:14.292 --> 00:09:17.332 innocent, right? Just like HBO doesn't only make Succession. 00:09:17.832 --> 00:09:24.472 But it means they should focus on that and being a really great TV company. 00:09:24.992 --> 00:09:29.432 So there is really good children's content on that. There's really good documentaries. 00:09:29.832 --> 00:09:36.992 There's live sport. there's top part you know top end series sounds to me like 00:09:36.992 --> 00:09:44.312 a really good tv channel right that's quite useful to people oh absolutely absolutely so why, 00:09:45.232 --> 00:09:48.432 why get involved in the hollywood rat race as well. 00:09:51.872 --> 00:09:59.092 Um experimentation yeah you know prestige i guess well prestige but just the 00:09:59.092 --> 00:10:02.132 idea that Let's find out if this resonates with our audience. 00:10:02.612 --> 00:10:06.772 If six months from now, Apple TV Plus announces, hey, you know what? 00:10:06.852 --> 00:10:09.452 We're not going to license movies anymore from Hollywood. 00:10:10.272 --> 00:10:14.452 Okay, that's going to send a pretty clear message that that was not a successful strategy. 00:10:15.132 --> 00:10:22.772 So what do they try next? Do they have a Hollywood movie of the week? 00:10:23.272 --> 00:10:27.872 That sounds like such a dated concept. But instead of having that variety, 00:10:28.052 --> 00:10:31.512 do they just focus and say, you know, or this is going to be, 00:10:31.512 --> 00:10:36.852 you know, MCU week and we're going to show Marvel Cinematic Universe movies for a week? 00:10:37.352 --> 00:10:39.992 I mean, I can see this being an experience. Well, Tiger doesn't have a good relationship. 00:10:41.172 --> 00:10:47.112 Well, and look, think about the overall streaming landscape right now. 00:10:47.972 --> 00:10:50.992 Everybody's trying to figure it out. Everybody's trying to figure out how to survive. 00:10:53.621 --> 00:10:59.401 I think so. I think they should keep like niches are important, right? 00:10:59.581 --> 00:11:01.901 And Apple has carved out a niche. 00:11:02.161 --> 00:11:05.501 You don't need it doesn't need to be Disney Plus or Netflix. 00:11:06.561 --> 00:11:12.001 Because it's also part of a bigger Apple media environment. So I don't think it needs to do that. 00:11:12.001 --> 00:11:14.661 Um i don't think it needs 00:11:14.661 --> 00:11:17.361 to mimic netflix another way it might 00:11:17.361 --> 00:11:20.261 be mimicking netflix as it moves forward as you pointed out 00:11:20.261 --> 00:11:23.141 to me before the show there's been lots of discussion and rumors 00:11:23.141 --> 00:11:26.121 circulating that we might soon be getting ads on apple 00:11:26.121 --> 00:11:28.981 tv plus now you do get ads for example if 00:11:28.981 --> 00:11:32.221 you watch certain live things i'm pretty 00:11:32.221 --> 00:11:36.121 sure i've seen ads on the baseball um so 00:11:36.121 --> 00:11:39.341 like ads at apple tv plus is not impossible and it obviously most importantly 00:11:39.341 --> 00:11:44.441 does pre-roll post uh ads for its own content already but that's not really 00:11:44.441 --> 00:11:49.561 what you were talking about was it well once again we're talking about rumors 00:11:49.561 --> 00:11:53.661 so we don't know exactly what we're talking about um you know is it possible 00:11:53.661 --> 00:11:57.861 that apple could introduce uh an ad supported tier, 00:11:59.689 --> 00:12:05.229 As opposed to, you know, and then therefore jack up the price to the no ad tier. 00:12:07.429 --> 00:12:12.189 The advertising thing is interesting. And I'm going to go off topic just a little 00:12:12.189 --> 00:12:14.549 bit and point out podcasting. 00:12:15.189 --> 00:12:17.729 I'll continue with my tea gun, thanks. Please do. 00:12:18.409 --> 00:12:23.909 There are podcasts out there. And my show's ad supported, I think your show's 00:12:23.909 --> 00:12:25.069 ad supported one way or another. 00:12:25.709 --> 00:12:29.129 Yes, absolutely. really but you can 00:12:29.129 --> 00:12:32.589 overdo it i can think of one particular podcast and i'm 00:12:32.589 --> 00:12:37.329 not going to call any names but do it they no i'm not going to do it but they 00:12:37.329 --> 00:12:42.609 have a they every show pre-roll is one and a half minutes to two and two minutes 00:12:42.609 --> 00:12:47.929 of advertisement it's a great it's a great business show i don't mind saying 00:12:47.929 --> 00:12:52.529 that it's a great business show and i enjoy it but i just i've I've gotten in the habit of, 00:12:52.569 --> 00:12:55.169 you know, tap, tap, tap, tap, 30 seconds. 00:12:55.229 --> 00:12:58.269 I must tell you, I've heard shows that are longer than that, 00:12:58.369 --> 00:13:00.429 more advertising than that. 00:13:00.909 --> 00:13:04.549 And advertising mid-roll and advertising post-roll. 00:13:05.049 --> 00:13:10.469 And I think they're going to kill themselves because I'm getting to the point 00:13:10.469 --> 00:13:11.849 where it's frustrating. 00:13:11.849 --> 00:13:14.989 So if if all of 00:13:14.989 --> 00:13:17.989 these entities that adopt advertising would do 00:13:17.989 --> 00:13:20.669 so in a for lack of 00:13:20.669 --> 00:13:24.249 a better phrase a tasteful fashion i think it would go down a lot easier instead 00:13:24.249 --> 00:13:28.349 of just trying to jam every single ad they can get in there hoping that people 00:13:28.349 --> 00:13:35.569 will watch them or pay attention to the content yeah you can't take your viewers 00:13:35.569 --> 00:13:39.849 for granted do you think apple could do introduce ads 00:13:40.069 --> 00:13:43.569 and frame it as that's the way we're keeping the price as low as it is? 00:13:43.629 --> 00:13:50.149 Do you think they would do that? Have adverts for everyone and then keep the price low. 00:13:50.509 --> 00:13:55.169 So it's increasing the sort of ARPU for one of the technical, 00:13:55.289 --> 00:14:01.329 you know, the average revenue per user, presumably, but keeping the compelling price point. 00:14:03.249 --> 00:14:08.069 That's a really interesting idea. It doesn't feel Apple-like to me. 00:14:10.409 --> 00:14:18.369 No maybe you might well be right there but it just feels look at tv plus is 00:14:18.369 --> 00:14:21.449 already not a very big service right compared to other things it's not like 00:14:21.449 --> 00:14:23.349 netflix where the numbers are huge, 00:14:24.489 --> 00:14:28.509 so a small a lower tier kind of work because there's still so many numbers across 00:14:28.509 --> 00:14:34.489 the board right slicing and dicing a relatively small viewership seems like 00:14:34.489 --> 00:14:39.149 a lot of effort for But you're going to annoy people anyway, right? 00:14:39.349 --> 00:14:42.649 If you put up prices, it annoys people. If you introduce ads, it annoys people. 00:14:44.489 --> 00:14:52.749 If you do both, it really annoys people. So I kind of think the spin of like 00:14:52.749 --> 00:14:57.609 we're keeping the price low, but you're going to see a couple of pre-roll and post-roll ads is, 00:14:59.923 --> 00:15:03.483 I mean, to be honest, I'd be perfectly happy if Apple did that, frankly. 00:15:04.763 --> 00:15:10.803 It wouldn't bother me. But, you know, I know people seem to see this as a black and white issue. 00:15:10.923 --> 00:15:16.123 Either they accept ads or they really, really, really detest ads. 00:15:16.643 --> 00:15:23.183 And I'm somewhere in the middle because I grew up with ad-supported TV that was over the air. 00:15:23.363 --> 00:15:28.023 And so ads, most ads, if they're not overdone, are not a big deal. 00:15:28.023 --> 00:15:32.403 But when I start running into two- and three-minute stretches of ads, 00:15:32.703 --> 00:15:34.483 then I get a little touchy. 00:15:37.323 --> 00:15:40.923 So, yeah, this goes back to the fundamental point that it's about respecting 00:15:40.923 --> 00:15:43.023 your listeners, viewers, readers, whatever. 00:15:43.483 --> 00:15:48.563 We don't like reading websites where it's just scattered with meaningless programmatic ads. 00:15:49.123 --> 00:15:55.043 I like listening to podcasts where the podcaster reads out about a product or 00:15:55.043 --> 00:15:57.583 service that I might be interested in. 00:15:58.023 --> 00:16:03.763 For example. I have no objection to a website flagging another product I may 00:16:03.763 --> 00:16:06.563 be interested in, likewise a TV program. 00:16:07.183 --> 00:16:12.143 So if Apple could do it in a respectful way, that might work. 00:16:12.283 --> 00:16:17.323 I think I've read that on News Plus, Apple is doing an advertising deal with 00:16:17.323 --> 00:16:20.223 Taboola, you know, those ads that you often see at the bottom of websites. 00:16:20.603 --> 00:16:25.903 So it's obviously, as a media part of Apple, is clearly thinking about advertising 00:16:25.903 --> 00:16:28.343 a lot more than it has previously. 00:16:31.083 --> 00:16:35.263 Charlotte, I think the way the world is right now, I mean, you almost have to. 00:16:35.943 --> 00:16:42.463 It's because people are not willing to pay as big a premium and or the companies 00:16:42.463 --> 00:16:48.583 are not as satisfied with the premium they get for ad-free content. 00:16:50.381 --> 00:16:56.061 And so what do you do? Do you raise the prices or do you start embracing the 00:16:56.061 --> 00:16:59.941 advertising model a little bit and try to make it tasteful? 00:17:00.221 --> 00:17:06.621 And to your point, respecting the viewer or reader, I can understand why they're having to do it. 00:17:08.281 --> 00:17:11.161 So we should know that Apple has actually gone up. 00:17:11.241 --> 00:17:14.561 TV Plus has actually gone up in price since its first launch. 00:17:14.621 --> 00:17:19.661 You know, not enormous amounts. And it's still very compelling compared to the 00:17:19.661 --> 00:17:23.761 others. So it's £8.99 a month now in the UK. 00:17:24.041 --> 00:17:26.541 What is it in dollars in the US? It's £8.99. 00:17:27.261 --> 00:17:29.621 I have it as part of an Apple One bundle. 00:17:32.361 --> 00:17:35.861 Which I still think that's very good value. I think the bundle's a good value, 00:17:35.921 --> 00:17:38.781 and I think the service on its own is good value. 00:17:40.201 --> 00:17:46.201 I also think that it is pushing the limit of, at the moment, 00:17:46.241 --> 00:17:47.561 what people will pay for it. 00:17:47.561 --> 00:17:51.481 So some if it wants to you know which it obviously does because apple wants 00:17:51.481 --> 00:17:56.261 to increase the revenue coming through the system putting a couple of ads front 00:17:56.261 --> 00:18:01.601 and back is no problem and you know back to our earlier conversation about the 00:18:01.601 --> 00:18:03.981 type of content where this is where i think these two topics, 00:18:04.721 --> 00:18:11.441 come together i think it's a very compelling pitch for advertisers one that 00:18:11.441 --> 00:18:14.181 everyone that pays for TV Plus is going to see adverts. 00:18:15.341 --> 00:18:20.801 Two, that people are coming specifically to TV Plus for our content, 00:18:20.901 --> 00:18:22.381 and they know it's high quality content. 00:18:22.601 --> 00:18:26.861 So you've got a high caliber of viewer to put your adverts in front of. 00:18:26.941 --> 00:18:32.001 If you start mucking around with the catalog, you might lose that. 00:18:33.970 --> 00:18:37.090 I sure what i again i don't disagree i look 00:18:37.090 --> 00:18:40.530 i have a question for you because i'm not i'm 00:18:40.530 --> 00:18:43.610 sorry i'm not an hbo subscriber i have zero idea 00:18:43.610 --> 00:18:46.630 what the ad structure if there is one in 00:18:46.630 --> 00:18:50.670 hbo is do they have ads at all remember hbo remembers 00:18:50.670 --> 00:18:54.210 in the us i only see it as part of um sky 00:18:54.210 --> 00:18:57.470 atlantic here which absolutely does have adverts um 00:18:57.470 --> 00:19:00.330 and obviously there's max the streaming service isn't 00:19:00.330 --> 00:19:03.330 though they hbo max became max didn't it and they 00:19:03.330 --> 00:19:06.430 put all that together um and then 00:19:06.430 --> 00:19:09.390 the content is licensed here through scout sky and now 00:19:09.390 --> 00:19:15.870 tv as um part of what they call sky atlantic um so there's there's obviously 00:19:15.870 --> 00:19:20.150 that part of it i you know hbo obviously does have adverts i'm sure of that 00:19:20.150 --> 00:19:27.690 um i can't quite remember what they do on the max streaming service it's just into your fundamental 00:19:27.890 --> 00:19:30.730 point and frankly both these topics 00:19:30.730 --> 00:19:35.890 of our conversation is really hit on this is that in streaming it's a real time 00:19:35.890 --> 00:19:40.870 of experimentation it's a time of you know it's quite difficult at the moment 00:19:40.870 --> 00:19:44.670 for people who are running these services because it's a you know it's a crowded 00:19:44.670 --> 00:19:49.710 marketplace it's a competitive marketplace and apple knowingly went into that marketplace. 00:19:51.190 --> 00:19:54.270 And yet now is having to do the kind of juggling 00:19:54.270 --> 00:19:56.970 i i wonder if i ever thought it would have 00:19:56.970 --> 00:20:00.190 to do this kind of juggling what do you know what i mean like didn't 00:20:00.190 --> 00:20:03.030 think oh we're apple we can do it the apple way we 00:20:03.030 --> 00:20:06.850 don't have to play the game that others do we 00:20:06.850 --> 00:20:09.970 don't need to worry about ads we don't need to you know we just have all our 00:20:09.970 --> 00:20:17.710 own content we can be apple about it well apple as we both know loves to control 00:20:17.710 --> 00:20:23.230 everything they can possibly control everything and right now the The overall 00:20:23.230 --> 00:20:26.470 streaming landscape is something they can't control. 00:20:26.650 --> 00:20:31.590 They can control what they put on their channel or their service, I should say. 00:20:31.990 --> 00:20:36.630 And they do, and they have up to this point. 00:20:37.270 --> 00:20:41.710 Now they're reaching out and saying, maybe we can tap another source for content. 00:20:42.990 --> 00:20:49.090 Because, again, my recollection from the movies I've paid attention to in these 00:20:49.090 --> 00:20:52.050 packages, they're far from first-run movies. 00:20:53.406 --> 00:20:57.926 They're the kind of movies that you go back and say, I'm looking for an old 00:20:57.926 --> 00:21:02.546 favorite or I'm looking for maybe something I missed that I meant to watch and never got around to. 00:21:03.046 --> 00:21:05.886 You mean the type of movies that they might be commissioning? 00:21:06.606 --> 00:21:10.566 Yes. Yes. Yeah. Well, the ones that have already been there and now they're 00:21:10.566 --> 00:21:12.146 looking at. Well, we did have that. 00:21:13.266 --> 00:21:16.806 Yeah, I think there's going to have to be a discussion about that. 00:21:16.846 --> 00:21:21.586 I'm not sure because we did have it when they made 50 odd new movies available, didn't they? 00:21:21.626 --> 00:21:25.426 That were pretty good. And obviously, they must have been happy with how that played out, right? 00:21:26.366 --> 00:21:30.566 Yeah. But again, they were not first run. 00:21:30.666 --> 00:21:33.506 They were just in the theater three months ago, two months ago, 00:21:33.606 --> 00:21:35.766 six months ago. Sure. As I recall. 00:21:36.086 --> 00:21:41.826 And so that's where I feel like this may not be a terrible strategy of just 00:21:41.826 --> 00:21:48.806 giving the Apple TV Plus viewer another option for a movie style. 00:21:48.806 --> 00:21:56.046 Um because well look you and i've we disagreed on napoleon a bit um not my vibe 00:21:56.046 --> 00:22:03.106 we agreed on on tetris um great film really enjoyed that but okay so let's see what other um, 00:22:03.806 --> 00:22:07.946 killers of the flower moon i still haven't seen because that just wasn't my thing. 00:22:09.566 --> 00:22:12.586 Likewise so what but actually sorry 00:22:12.586 --> 00:22:15.226 to again to interrupt but killers of the flower moon is a 00:22:15.226 --> 00:22:17.886 a really great example of what we were 00:22:17.886 --> 00:22:20.886 talking about so that was meant to be an 00:22:20.886 --> 00:22:23.986 absolute mega hit it took years it cost 00:22:23.986 --> 00:22:26.786 a fortune do you 00:22:26.786 --> 00:22:29.646 think it made that huge cultural impact that it apple would 00:22:29.646 --> 00:22:36.726 have expected from that movie i don't i don't think it did i sure didn't hear 00:22:36.726 --> 00:22:40.686 many people talking i mean beyond the fact that it was out there beyond the 00:22:40.686 --> 00:22:47.066 fact that the the the the the actor roster was amazing and all that. 00:22:47.726 --> 00:22:52.706 No, but it's not the first time that somebody that was trying to make a year. 00:22:52.826 --> 00:22:57.266 It's an interesting phrase. You use Charlotte, a culturally impactful video 00:22:57.266 --> 00:23:00.726 or movie fell flat on its face. 00:23:02.246 --> 00:23:07.546 Maybe fat on its face is a bit harsh, but it didn't make the impact of that. 00:23:07.626 --> 00:23:11.486 Some of the TV shows have, has it? None of the movies have apart from Coda. 00:23:11.886 --> 00:23:15.466 No, no, No, they have not. So here we go. 00:23:15.906 --> 00:23:19.306 Back to your point, should TV Plus become HBO? 00:23:19.946 --> 00:23:25.286 Back to my point, do they need to expand out into something that gives a little 00:23:25.286 --> 00:23:27.786 more variety for a different type of watching? 00:23:30.606 --> 00:23:37.126 To wrap up then, in six months' time, do you think we will see adverts on Apple TV Plus? 00:23:40.109 --> 00:23:45.109 I think we will see some option for advertising of some kind. 00:23:45.249 --> 00:23:50.009 I don't know that it would be just the Apple TV Plus service with ads. 00:23:50.289 --> 00:23:53.689 I think there might be two tiers or something like that. 00:23:56.029 --> 00:24:03.769 Because, listen, there's an interesting option. If you create an ad-supported 00:24:03.769 --> 00:24:07.349 channel that is lower priced or no price, 00:24:07.349 --> 00:24:10.189 do you therefore start drawing an 00:24:10.189 --> 00:24:13.169 audience in for your for your content 00:24:13.169 --> 00:24:17.189 and here's a really wild idea maybe 00:24:17.189 --> 00:24:23.609 only have season one shows of of a given series on that ad supported tier and 00:24:23.609 --> 00:24:29.729 if you want to see season two and three or more that you have to subscribe to 00:24:29.729 --> 00:24:33.949 the higher channel there's lots of ways they could do it my other question to 00:24:33.949 --> 00:24:36.369 you then in six months time again i i.e. 00:24:36.389 --> 00:24:41.769 Basically by the end of the year, do you think we will see as a permanent fixture, 00:24:43.049 --> 00:24:48.929 some kind of way of having non-Apple created content in Apple TV Plus? 00:24:51.889 --> 00:24:55.889 I think you'll see it probably for six months or a little bit longer. 00:24:55.989 --> 00:24:59.449 I'm not ready to say permanent because I don't know. 00:24:59.549 --> 00:25:02.769 Right now we're sitting in the middle of the end of July, 00:25:02.909 --> 00:25:05.789 beginning of August here in the U.S., which are the 00:25:05.789 --> 00:25:08.889 the uh we're still in vacation time 00:25:08.889 --> 00:25:12.089 you know things don't get back to quasi normal until 00:25:12.089 --> 00:25:15.689 schools open in late august early september and 00:25:15.689 --> 00:25:20.149 then people start having to get into the you know the colder months in much 00:25:20.149 --> 00:25:24.309 of the u.s not all of the u.s of course and that's when i think tv viewing goes 00:25:24.309 --> 00:25:30.089 up so i would i i would think you're probably looking at somewhere in february 00:25:30.089 --> 00:25:33.909 march March before any firm decisions are made about the long-term viability. 00:25:34.569 --> 00:25:37.649 If I were sitting there, that's when I would want to do it. 00:25:38.849 --> 00:25:41.589 Okay. So you're thinking we'll wait and see stuff in the new year, 00:25:41.649 --> 00:25:42.929 not sort of the end of this year. 00:25:43.409 --> 00:25:47.209 When I meant permanent fixture, I didn't mean that in a sense that the content 00:25:47.209 --> 00:25:51.669 would be permanent, but this idea of non-Apple creative content would be permanent. 00:25:53.889 --> 00:25:57.929 Charlotte, other than your comments about diluting it, I don't see a downside 00:25:57.929 --> 00:26:02.889 to it Because if it doesn't, if I don't care about it, then I don't have to bother with it. 00:26:04.120 --> 00:26:09.080 Sure. I mean, that's obviously true. And look, we know that on Netflix and Prime 00:26:09.080 --> 00:26:13.700 Video and all sorts, there's all sorts of content you and I have never discovered 00:26:13.700 --> 00:26:18.420 that is just there and, you know, people just don't know about. 00:26:18.540 --> 00:26:21.340 So maybe it just doesn't offend people. 00:26:21.860 --> 00:26:27.020 Personally, if I were Apple, I would be focusing more on marketing the good 00:26:27.020 --> 00:26:31.200 stuff they do have than trying to add potentially less good stuff. 00:26:31.540 --> 00:26:35.660 Anyway, we will see. So that's something we completely agree on because I feel 00:26:35.660 --> 00:26:39.820 like that there's content there that I want to recommend to friends and have 00:26:39.820 --> 00:26:42.040 recommended to friends and they, they love it, 00:26:42.600 --> 00:26:47.140 but they would never have found it on their own, even if they are Apple TV plus subscribers. 00:26:47.980 --> 00:26:51.980 Yeah. Yeah. Totally agree with you. Totally agree with you. Well, 00:26:52.160 --> 00:26:55.620 um, that's, that's a lot to be thinking about over the summer. 00:26:56.000 --> 00:27:00.060 We will, we will return. We might have some exciting TV plus news for you as well. 00:27:00.100 --> 00:27:04.500 When we return, we'll say we're going to have a little, little bit of a summer chill out, I think. 00:27:04.680 --> 00:27:08.120 Maybe catch up with some of the stuff we've missed in the busier months of the year. 00:27:08.340 --> 00:27:13.880 And well, we'll be back. Chuck, where can people keep up with you while they miss you in the interim? 00:27:15.960 --> 00:27:18.100 I'd be delighted if they missed me in the interim, Charlotte. 00:27:18.920 --> 00:27:21.860 If they do, they can find me at macvoices.com. 00:27:22.000 --> 00:27:26.980 That's where I talk to a lot of interesting people about Apple tech and beyond. 00:27:27.360 --> 00:27:30.360 And on the socials, you can find me as at Chuck Joyner. 00:27:31.600 --> 00:27:35.640 I'm at Charlotte A. Henry across social media and head over to theedition.net 00:27:35.640 --> 00:27:39.020 for blogs, newsletters, and more podcasts. 00:27:39.440 --> 00:27:43.580 Thanks so much for joining us and we'll see you soon. Thanks for listening.