
‘South Park’ Nears $500M Deal for U.S. Streaming Rights - u-dissolve
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-18/-south-park-nears-500-million-deal-for-u-s-streaming-rights
======
dang
The submitted title broke the HN guideline that asks not to editorialize.
Please don't do that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

(Submitted title was "‘South Park’ Nears $500 Million bid for its US Streaming
Rights, Apple won't bid".)

------
awinder
“One company that probably won’t be bidding is Apple Inc., the people said.
The tech giant has eschewed controversial programming that could damage its
brand, and it’s wary of offending China, where it sells a lot of iPhones.”

Did Bloomberg change the title or did the submitter editorialize? This is the
only mention of Apple and yeah, Apple was never going to pick this up because
it’s a TV-MA program and they’re not trying to go there with their streaming
service.

This is such a reach for Apple concern trolling.

~~~
u-dissolve
I made the title that because it was the part of the article I was most
interested in.

I changed the title to "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights
fearing controversy and China" in order to better reflect that Apple doesn't
want to hurt its brand with controversial programming, as you mentioned. I
would rather make the title "Apple won't bid on 'South Park' streaming rights
fearing controversial programming that could hurt its brand and China," but
that doesn't fit withing HN's length limit.

Edit: Apple has a history in cooperating with China's censorship, so it's not
much of a stretch. If so, Apple wouldn't say that's the reason they didn't
bid, for obvious reasons.

Edit: I know that South Park's controversial/adult nature could be a factor in
their decision. It says that in the article, and it's why I decided to change
the title to include that.

Edit: Alright, I suppose I am in the wrong here. I'll change the title to more
closely match the original article.

~~~
threeseed
But you've completely misrepresented the facts.

Apple isn't specifically turning down South Park because of controversy/China.
They never said why and to be honest it could be just as simple as it doesn't
fit in with the rest of AppleTV+. Which IMHO it really doesn't.

------
gtirloni
I had a feeling Apple was pushing for encryption and privacy, to be a
counterpoint to Google's massive data collection. However, seeing how they are
handling China (one could say, how they must handle China given their
dependency), I don't know if that will be a selling point anymore.

~~~
u-dissolve
Google profits from advertising; Google collects data for advertising.

Apple profits from iPhones; Apple conforms to censorship to keep their biggest
(population-wise) customer.

Companies are driven by money, not goodwill. Apple only pushed for privacy
_because_ it was a selling point.

------
andrei_says_
South Park is a litmus test and so is subordination to the Chinese party
leadership’s egos.

I wonder if we’re witnessing the shift of economic gravity center and if
companies like Apple are running long term analyses of the costs of protecting
their brand in one market at the risk of tarnishing it in another.

~~~
millstone
South Park is important and has its place, but it's obvious that place could
never be a family-friendly streaming service like Apple offers.

~~~
u-dissolve
Apple does not advertise their streaming service as "family-friendly." It's
surprising that they didn't make a single bid on a show as big as South Park.

------
eveFromKarmaFm
Matt and Trey should launch TegrityFlix (TegrityTube?) and show only content
that is banned in China, launching with an episode about "Tegrity VPN".

I'd buy a subscription in a heartbeat.

