Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Looks stupid as shit. Regardless, my point is they have so much money they literally can burn it on projects that will never make them a cent.

They are paying Steve Carell $1 million an episode. That's $100 million over 2 seasons for 3 actors. Forget paying all the other actors, camera men, set & crew. There is no way Apple is making any money on that show. Insane that they have so much money they can literally piss away hundred million plus and not even feel it. It's like you or me losing $1 at a casino to them.

Long game. Content is king.

It's why there is literally hundred-million-dollar fights over the streaming rights to shows like Friends and The Office. People will subscribe to your streaming service just to watch reruns. 

I figure a lot of these shows are lottery ticket items. Make a bunch of them, try to make as much subscriber money as you can off of them while they're on the air, and then hope that some of them become so valuable as reruns for streaming that they'll keep subscribers around.

Netflix has 209M subscribers. If you figure a rough guess each is worth $10/mo, that's $25B annually in revenue. The reason they have revenue is content rights. Nobody would subscribe if there was nothing good to watch. 

Apple TV+ is throwing a shit-ton of money at original content (just like Netflix did). It's tough to get subscriber numbers from them, and there are probably quite a few (like us) that got 1 year free subscriptions because of having an Apple device--but we'd have never found Ted Lasso or The Morning Show without that free subscription and now my wife wants to remain subscribed, so I guess it'll pay off for Apple... 

Pretty sure this isn't "pissing away" money. 

Long game. Content is king.

It's why there is literally hundred-million-dollar fights over the streaming rights to shows like Friends and The Office. People will subscribe to your streaming service just to watch reruns.

I figure a lot of these shows are lottery ticket items. Make a bunch of them, try to make as much subscriber money as you can off of them while they're on the air, and then hope that some of them become so valuable as reruns for streaming that they'll keep subscribers around.

Netflix has 209M subscribers. If you figure a rough guess each is worth $10/mo, that's $25B annually in revenue. The reason they have revenue is content rights. Nobody would subscribe if there was nothing good to watch.

Apple TV+ is throwing a shit-ton of money at original content (just like Netflix did). It's tough to get subscriber numbers from them, and there are probably quite a few (like us) that got 1 year free subscriptions because of having an Apple device--but we'd have never found Ted Lasso or The Morning Show without that free subscription and now my wife wants to remain subscribed, so I guess it'll pay off for Apple...

Pretty sure this isn't "pissing away" money.

Streaming rights for popular sitcoms is the new tv syndication. Content is king. That's why Disney gobbled up Marvel for $4 billion, LucasFilms (Star Wars) for $4 billion, and a huge chunk of 20th Century Fox for $71 billion.

AppleTV+ has 40 million subscribers. That's a far cry from what Netflix and Disney+ have. That 40 mil includes the millions of free 1 year subscriptions like the one I got for buying an iPad. And I have zero interest in re-upping, hell they can take the 1 year free back and knock $120 off my iPad if they'd like. I'd much prefer that.

Apple has so much god damn money they should've been buying up assets instead of half-assing it on creating their own content that nobody wants to watch and they have to give subscriptions away for free just to pad their user base numbers.

Apple is trying to get into the streaming game and also trying to get into the automotive business and build an electric car. They will fail at both. Tim Cook sucks. What they should've done is acquire assets with the ungodly pile of nearly $300 Billion in cash they had. What did they do? They did a bunch of share buybacks and they bought Beats freaking headphones. Beats. Headphones. That was Tim Cook's crowning achievement as CEO. What a joke. Apple could've acquired Netflix and Tesla 10 times over during the last 10 years and every time they were approached they turned the acquisitions down. Biggest mistake Apple ever made was not acquiring Tesla and making Elon Musk CEO of the entire company.

I'll never understand $300 headphones. 

Beats headphones have been mostly trash. I had them in the past, they were always overpriced garbage.  

Supposedly they bought Beats more for the music streaming and to boost Apple Music.

The AirPods & AirPods Pro are better products than anything Beats ever made. I got my AirPods Pro on sale for $199 and it’s the best $200 I think I’ve ever spent. Love those damn things.

It kinda seems to me like they are phasing out the Beats brand and pushing their own AirPods headphones much more. There are now 3 versions of the AirPods. AirPods, AirPods Pro, and AirPods Pro Max.

Sounds systems, like nearly everything in life, reaches a plateau if you chart expense versus quality, or near plateau.  You can get a nice Honda Accord for $35 K or so, brand new, very functional car, or spend double on a BMW and drive it like you would an Accord and put more gas in it.

Anything above that is to impress strangers.

I have some ancient Koss headphones I bought around 1978 here somewhere, never use them.  

Diminishing returns.

My first real speakers were Small Advents, they were great for 1974, boomy and unsettled foggy bass, but bass.  I moved up to cleaner speakers when I got a real job, I can't recall the name, and when I retired got some Monitor Acoustics Silvers, which are solid, added a MA sound bar and subwoofer.  I had a half decent Onkyo receiver that I upgraded recently and was shocked at the difference it made.  I got a "refurbished" Yamaha receiver that was obviously brand new anyway.

And now I rarely listen anyway.  

My buddy in Cincy told me he spent over $2 K on speaker CABLES alone.  He did have a nice system, three of them actually.

We bought a Yamaha "electric piano" that is awesome, it uses a normal keyboard and translates that into electronics.  So, the action feels like a real grand.

The wife uses it as a stereo in the bedroom.  She listens to classical almost nonstop.

Jabra have a  good set of wireless buds.

I'm no audiophile but there's so much 'sound' lost w streaming era.   It's kind of sad as so many other developments have improved, technologically speaking.

My friend was trying to eek out the last bit of sound quality I gather.  He was in some club that discussed such things in minute detail.

I'd guess he had spent nearly $100 K on his main sound system, so 2% for speaker wire wasn't out of balance, I reckon.

They were ribbon type, I don't know what kind, very thick.  The funny thing, to me, is they had a pretty small TV in the same room not hooked up to it.

Most Expensive Audio Cables | Expenditure | SuccessStory

Most Expensive Audio Cables
Audio cables are among the most important accessories that audiophiles pay close attention to in music. Most of them can spend thousands of bucks to get the best audio quality possible. Some audiophiles claim that audio cables can make or even break their hi-fis sound, but some of them don’t believe in this and go for the cheapest audio cables.

• Most Expensive Speakers
• Most Expensive Televisions

Debates on audio cables have existed for many decades, but the only way to know which piece is quality for sure is to try one of the most expensive cables of all time. Here are some of the most expensive audio cables currently on the market. 
1. Siltech Emperor Crown - $40,000

This is the most expensive audio cable of all time. It costs $40,000. The audio cable combines most of the recent technology in insulation materials, metallurgy and construction techniques. Moreover, its Royal signature series makes the user delve deep into musical soul while keeping the video and audio signal clean and free from noise.