Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PetyrDayne OP t1_j96ynlu wrote

>There’s a terrific article that ran earlier this year on the “enshittification” of TikTok specifically, and of the Internet writ large. It would be hard to summarize succinctly here, but the gist is that sites like TikTok or Facebook start by being good to their users, then screwing them to benefit business customers, then screwing business customers to benefit themselves, and then dying. If you accept that as true—and it’s hard to argue against the evidence—Apple TV+ is very much in the “being good to its users” phase of things, while streaming services like Netflix have moved on to the next stage of evolution. From Slow Horses to Severance to Physical to Black Bird, they’ve proved that they put quality at the top of the priority list, they aren’t afraid to take stylistic risks, and more than occasionally, those risks are paying off. How long it lasts is anybody’s guess—enshittification seems to come for them all—but there’s no denying that we’re living in the Apple TV+ golden age.

>Into that framework steps Hello Tomorrow!, the new drama set in a time and place that is accurately described in its own literature as “retro-future.” In practice, that means the most idealized, catalogue-perfect version of the ‘50s, plus robots and other gadgets that are technologically advanced, but only as imagined by someone living in that age (picture The Jetsons, but on Earth and not animated). The dresses and the cars are vintage, but the ennui and desperation of the people is modern. The man to cure that dread, we learn in the first episode, is Jack Billings, a salesman (played by Billy Crudup) who is hawking literal condos on the moon.

>The myth of escape is the prevailing impulse of the suckers in this show, and though Jack can be heard to admit in a candid moment that our problems will be waiting for us on the lunar surface, for the most part he’s a smiling paragon of the fervent hope that maybe, just maybe, they won’t be. Crudup is spectacular in the role, and while there are surface similarities to the executive Cory Ellison he plays in The Morning Show, what’s hiding behind Ellison is a menacing readiness to kill, while here, what lies beneath the facade of Billings is something sadder, and more hopeless. Nevertheless, we only see the barest glimpses of that, and where Crudup really shines in his thorough embodiment of a man who truly, truly sells the dream. Even though we the viewers understand that he’s full of shit, his performance is so unflinching we want to believe him—we want to believe that the world of promise he prophesies actually exists, and we want to believe that we can seize it and possess some of his unshakeable optimism. We want our place on the moon, yes, but we also want to be him.

First three paragraphs

29

Mentoman72 t1_j97k0oh wrote

I love that people are calling Apple risk takers. Are they making high quality good shit? Yeah. They are a trillion dollar company, their TV brand is probably less than 1 percent of their earnings. They can afford to take huge swings.

21

IamtheSlothKing t1_j972lx5 wrote

You can never create a new service that is also financially viable on the internet. You will always have to basically create a service that isn’t profitable so that you can grow an audience, and then figure out how to make money after you have the audience.

I don’t think this applies to Apple TV at all basically, they will always need to be churning out good content to keep an audience.

15

Saar13 t1_j974zrx wrote

Apple plays a long game, and given the financial disaster of traditional media groups, they could be long-term winners. It's simply waiting until most of the competition has no more money to compete. It's "very Apple" to do that, by the way.

I was reading a news story this week that Google may be paying Apple $30 billion annually to simply keep Google as the default search in Safari and a few other simple deals. That alone represents annual revenue for WBD and Paramount. It's a money machine that will wait for others to fail, without any worries. Lucky for them.

16

[deleted] t1_j988p05 wrote

[deleted]

−1

Saar13 t1_j98d7hx wrote

But what would be Apple's anticompetitive behavior in relation to AppleTV+? hey didn't buy any studios; they're just playing sitting on top of money. What's happening to traditional studios like WBD and Paramount is their fault.

1

okoroezenwa t1_j993uh8 wrote

Seriously, antitrust action because Apple basically kept to themselves and slowly amassed a formidable TV/Movie library over the years would be such a farce.

2

grandmofftalkin t1_j9b088f wrote

Apple has a diversified business model where most of their money is coming from selling hardware and the app store. That plus their cash on hand probably means Apple+ can thrive without subscriber or advertising pressures. Same with Amazon and to a lesser extent D+.

2

DisastrousDaveBerry t1_j9f8d0f wrote

> Same with Amazon and to a lesser extent D+.

Amazon has always been willing to keep throwing large amounts of money at things that don't make them a profit for many years until finally they do. The only times it hasn't worked for them is the smart-speakers and Amazon games.

1

Whalesurgeon t1_j9e6dv0 wrote

First paragraph tries to sell a narrative that, on surface level, describing services as first being good before being bad seems to contain some deeper truth. It ignores that as many sites start "bad", but we tend to only notice those that start good because bad starts tend to get discontinued. Plus, becoming mainstream inherently puts strain as well as its own evolution on sites and in terms of social media like reddit, the impossibility of moderating the largest subs or the sheer amount of users is what "enshittens" things. It's just describing some natural challenges in business growth in other words, separating "users" from business customers. The fuck is a business customer?

Entertainment journalism, ever the wild frontier.

1