Apple’s gameshow phobia won’t change


In this week’s “Sunday Reboot,” Malcolm ponders why Apple TV doesn’t do game shows, and if it ever will properly work competition-based shows into its streaming service.

Anyone paying a subscription expects to get their money’s worth from their monthly outlay, especially when it comes to streaming services. I occasionally look at the collection that I pay for each month, and if I haven’t watched it enough in the last few months, it gets cancelled for a while.

This does help save a bit of money, but the one that I simply cannot do this to is Apple TV. That’s primarily because it’s in my Apple One subscription and I use everything else in the package a lot.

Since getting rid of Apple TV isn’t an option, I have to come up with reasons to actually watch stuff on it. That is surprisingly hard, because I’m not really a narrative-driven guy.

With the exception of Ted Lasso and rare viewings of light sci-fi, I can’t really get into the content Apple TV provides in a major way.

I believe the problem, at least for my particular viewing habits, is that Apple doesn’t do game shows.

It does do sports, certainly, and that would be considered competition in nature. But I’m discounting them as gameshows and reality competition shows are a different thing entirely.

I am very much a trivia nut, and I can get behind people doing tasks and competing in challenges. While I prefer “shiny floor” studio game shows, I’m not against reality competition shows either, and I even seek out the weird and wild ones, too.

My favorite is still Release the Hounds, which had people take on horror-themed tasks before trying to outrun dogs for money. As in real dogs chasing after and taking down the contestants.

A close second is the much lighter and family-friendly “Chef and My Fridge” on Netflix.

This is all stuff that Apple TV shies away from almost entirely. You certainly won’t be able to find an Apple Original trivia show on the service at all.

Three Whammies

Apple has, so far, produced three competition shows in its long-form programming history. Just three, and that’s if you stretch the definition a tiny bit.

None of them was what you could refer to as a smash hit at all.

The earliest, which predates Apple TV, was 2017’s Planet of the Apps. While Apple TV didn’t exist, it premiered on CNBC and was also available on Apple Music and iTunes.

It was a painfully obvious idea. A Shark Tank-esque show promoting app development by making people pitch apps that they thought could make them tons of money.

It was also a pretty bad show to watch, with developers trying to make Gary Vaynerchuk, Jessica Alba, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Will.I.Am care about their “great” idea. Really, the less remembered about it, the better.

Apple’s second real attempt, first for Apple TV itself, was My Kind of Country in 2023, which attempted to take on The Voice. Country singers around the world were gradually eliminated until one person won $100,000 and promotion on Apple Music.

This, again, makes sense for Apple to create, since it does the whole Apple Music thing.

But it evidently wasn’t enough of a hit to warrant a second series. It hasn’t officially been cancelled, but it’s also not been renewed either.

Door number three is Kpopped, which again is music, but barely counts as a competition show. Capitalizing on the K-pop wave, it combined established groups with Western artists, gave them 48 hours, and made them perform to an audience.

There is a vote to determine who did the best, so there is technically a competition aspect at play. But really, it’s an excuse to show established Western artists like Megan Thee Stallion, the Spice Girls, Kesha, and Kylie singing alongside K-pop groups like Billie and Itzy.

It’s basically fluff and an attempt to cash in on a global trend. Again, can’t really fault Apple for trying.

What we can fault Apple for is not trying enough.

Rivals

Pretty much every major streaming service has some form of game show or competition reality show on its current roster. I also don’t just mean shows from their imported back catalogs, but originals commissioned by the streaming services themselves.

Amazon’s got the Mr Beast-fronted Beast Games along with Last One Laughing, the James Bond-themed 007: Road to a Million, and a season of Pop Culture Jeopardy.

Netflix is far more prolific and is also very successful with its own content. You have skill-based shows like Blown Away and Is It Cake?, and physical competition shows such as Physical 100 and Floor Is Lava.

Its more cerebral content includes The Devil’s Plan, Million Dollar Secret, and the service-switching Pop Culture Jeopardy. Offbeat reality competition is also there with the decent Zombieverse, the middling Squid Game: The Challenge, and the throw-away Snowflake Mountain.

Disney+ is a bit of a different story, in part due to it pulling content from TV channels and studios it owns, which typically go on normal broadcast television first. The original programming side of things is a bit thin, but there was Star Wars: Jedi Temple Challenge, which was an attempt at a kids’ gameshow based on the film franchise.

It didn’t really work that well, but at least Disney tried.

Game show economics

Game shows and reality shows have a lot of aspects that studios like. That includes the relatively low per-episode cost to produce a season of a show.

For a studio quiz, you only need one small set, which is really cheap if it’s a long-running show. Reality competition shows need a lot more, but far from the scale of what is needed for a high-budget drama.

Staffing is also relatively cheap compared to scripted programming, as the prize contestants fight over can be less than the total cost of a bunch of actors and extras.

Studio quizzes are also cheaper in terms of crew costs, as you can get multiple episodes in the can in a day. Short production times save money.

The economics of a game show, even one with a big six or seven-figure cash prize, make it that the cost of production is lower overall. If you’re careful, you can create multiple game shows for the same cost as one mid-size dramatic production.

That reality makes it easy for someone like Netflix to churn out multiple competition shows, in the hope that a few become hits. It’s worked for decades on broadcast television, and also for Netflix.

Quality, not quantity

While I can wish for Apple to do some decent game show-like content on its streaming platform, it’s something that probably won’t ever happen.

Since the beginning of Apple TV+, years before losing the plus, it had a remit to offer high-quality programming to viewers. In one early interview, then VP of Software and Services Eddy Cue was adamant that Apple was working on “creating the best” content instead of “creating the most.”

This is a strategy that has served Apple TV very well. Over the years, it has become known as a dramatic powerhouse, winning many awards and accolades in the process.

It even recently led to Cue, now SVP of Services and Health, to be named the 2026 Entertainment Person of the Year at Cannes Lions.

Evidently, he knows what he’s doing.

Apple is not in the business of being cheap with production. It does not believe in the shotgun approach to content, as it strives to make everything that comes through its doors a hit.

Unless there’s a sudden turnaround in strategy from Cue or someone else in Apple’s leadership team, it’s a policy that it will maintain for the foreseeable future.

Game shows, sadly, have no place on Apple TV. No question about it.

Last week’s Sunday Reboot discussed Beats beating FIFA at the advertising game and GymKit on iPhone.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


When the original Range Rover debuted in 1970, it introduced something the automotive world had not quite seen before: a vehicle as capable on a muddy trail as it was parked outside a five-star hotel. That unique combination of rugged capability and refined luxury few, if any, SUVs can pull off today. Yet, Land Rover has been doing it for five decades.

The current fifth-generation model, which arrived for 2022, extended that tradition with a cabin that let the quality of its materials speak for itself.

Now, the 2027 Audi Q9 is preparing to challenge it.

The Q9 makes its world debut on July 28th and is Audi’s first true full-size flagship SUV. While the exterior remains under wraps, Audi recently opened the doors for a first look at the interior. What’s inside reveals two very different philosophies about where traditional luxury is headed. Audi is betting on screens, sensors, and immersive technology, while Range Rover, in a notable move for 2027, is bringing physical knobs and controls back to the center console.

One brand is leaning forward. The other is going for a hint of nostalgia. Here is how they stack up.

Two cabins, unique two philosophies

Small details for discerning buyers

The Range Rover has long built its interior reputation on what it leaves out as much as what it puts in.

The current model is characterized by a clean and streamlined dashboard with minimal distractions. Premium materials include Windsor leather on the SE, semi-aniline leather on the SV, and sustainably sourced wood veneers across the lineup.

For 2027, the physical volume knob and Terrain Response selector are returning to the center console, reversing a decision made for the 2024 model year that moved those controls to the touchscreen. It is a small detail that some discerning buyers will appreciate. Although every new vehicle today has a touchscreen of some kind, the allure of a large screen has its limits.

Audi takes the opposite position with the Q9. The cabin moves away from the fingerprint-prone piano-black trim of earlier models, introducing matte and textured finishes alongside new materials. Q9 buyers will find Dinamica microfiber, Nappa leather, fine-grain ash inlays, and a carbon fiber weave with basalt gray accents. New colors, including Tamarind Brown and Stone Beige, complete the palette.


Audi Q9


Audi’s Q9 challenges the Mercedes GLS with 4D audio and a digital cabin for 10K less

The primary difference between these two flagship SUVs lies in their digital architecture.

Digital Stage vs. Pivi Pro

Three displays or one interface

Audi’s Digital Stage includes three displays across the Q9’s dashboard. The primary OLED touchscreen is front and center, while a driver’s instrument cluster is tucked just beyond the steering wheel.

The third screen is separate for passengers and sure to be enjoyed on long road trips by whoever is sitting there. Front-seat passengers can stream content from their own queue, whether that’s a YouTube video, a show on Netflix, or a podcast playlist, without interfering with anything on the driver’s side.

Range Rover’s Pivi Pro system uses a 13.1-inch central touchscreen as its primary interface, paired with a 12-inch interactive driver display. The system is quick, organized, and accessible within two taps from the home screen. There is no dedicated front passenger display, though 11.4-inch rear seat entertainment screens are available on the Autobiography trim and above.

The dedicated passenger screen may give the Audi Q9 an edge over the Range Rover and other competitors like the Lexus LX, which also does not offer a separate infotainment screen. However, both the Lexus LX and Range Rover offer rear-seat entertainment.

The Mercedes-Benz GLS and Cadillac Escalade, other prime competitors to the Audi Q9, also offer a rear-seat entertainment system, in addition to the separate passenger screen.

At the time of this writing, Audi has not confirmed the availability of a rear seat entertainment system for the Q9. Given the nature of its competitors, however, it seems in Audi’s best interest to include it as an option.

And finally, the return of physical knobs to the Range Rover for 2027 is the sharpest contrast to the Q9’s all-screen approach. Audi is presenting a cabin where most functions require screen interaction. Range Rover, after trying the same approach, concluded its buyers prefer not to hunt through sub-menus for simple volume and terrain controls.


Audi Q9


Audi’s Q9 aims to replace the Cadillac Escalade as the new standard of tech luxury

Audi enthusiasts may bristle. Cadillac loyalists might feel the same. But nonetheless, here we are.

Sound systems and the sensory experience

Meridian versus Bang & Olufsen 4D

The Bang & Olufsen 4D sound system in the Q9 includes physical actuators built into the front seats so occupants can feel low-end frequencies, not just hear them. Audi’s Dynamic Interaction Light, an LED strip at the base of the windshield, syncs its color and rhythm to the music, with the color scheme matched to the track’s cover art. Headrest speakers route phone calls and navigation prompts privately to the driver.

Range Rover has a bespoke Meridian Signature Sound System, standard on the Autobiography and above, tuned specifically to the cabin’s acoustics. The SV and SV Ultra models offer a more advanced Meridian configuration, albeit without the seat actuator sensations.

Meanwhile, the Audi Q9 has a seven-seat layout as standard, with an optional six-seat configuration with power-adjustable captain’s chairs in the second row. The outer second-row seat slides and tilts forward to ease third-row access without removing child car seats. Audi also introduces an aluminum rail system in the trunk for securing cargo in three dimensions, and includes roof-rail crossbars as standard.

Range Rover’s Long Wheelbase seven-seat layout has been available since the current generation launched, with semi-aniline heated leather across all three rows as standard on the LWB SE. The Autobiography and SV trims add the aforementioned rear seat entertainment screens, a front-center console refrigerator, and four-zone climate control.

Uniden R8 Transparent Background

Display Type

OLED

Radar Band Detection

X, K, Ka

The Uniden R8 is a dual-antenna radar detector with directional arrows, known for its long-range detection and false alert filtering capabilities. Comes preloaded with red light and speed camera locations and supports firmware updates for ongoing performance enhancements.  


Electric doors and adaptive headlights

Where the Q9 pulls ahead

Three Q9 features have no direct equivalent in the current Range Rover.

All four doors on the Q9 open electronically at the push of a button, up to 90 degrees, with sensors that detect approaching cyclists. Drivers close them by pressing the brake pedal or fastening their seatbelt. Range Rover offers power doors on the SV trims, but Audi makes them standard across the entire Q9 lineup.

The Q9’s panoramic sunroof spans approximately 16 square feet and uses nine individually controllable glass segments that dim electronically. An optional LED package adds 84 lights inside the roof in up to 30 colors, matched to the cabin’s ambient lighting.

The Q9 also brings Digital Matrix LED headlights to U.S. customers for the first time. Using front-facing cameras, the system detects oncoming traffic and selectively masks the light around those vehicles, keeping maximum illumination everywhere else on the road.

According to a recent AAA survey, six in ten U.S. drivers struggle with headlight glare. Range Rover’s Pixel LED headlights, standard on the Autobiography and above, are excellent, but Audi’s matrix approach represents a meaningful step forward in lighting technology for U.S. buyers.


2027 Audi Q9 coming soon

The 2027 Range Rover SE starts at $113,300, with the Autobiography beginning at $159,200. The SV lineup starts at $219,500 and climbs to $275,000 for the Long Wheelbase SV Ultra.

The 2027 Audi Q9 is expected to start around $80,000, with higher trims landing between $90,000 and $95,000.

Audi will reveal the full Q9 details on July 28th, with North American deliveries expected as early as November.



Source link