Apple's 'F1' is yet another big-budget, big-screen movie. I'm not sure why Apple keeps making them.

Business Insider

11 hours ago

I might. Partly because I'm a big fan of air conditioning right now. And partly because the movie, directed by the same guy who made the "Top Gun" sequel, looks like it could have very cool racing sequences, at the very minimum.
Bigger question, which isn't a new one: Why is Apple making big-budget movies and putting them in theaters?
Like I said, this isn't a new query. Lots of people in media and tech have been trying to understand Apple's approach to Hollywood for years now.
Since Apple launched Apple TV+ in 2019, it has spent tons of money making its own TV shows and movies for its streaming service. It remains unclear why.
The two operating theories, which are not mutually exclusive:
This is a very expensive marketing operation — if you like "Severance" or "F1," maybe it will make you that much more inclined to keep buying phones or Macs from Apple.
Maybe this will actually be a real business for Apple one day — part of its "services" push it has been on as its iPhone sales plateau.
Those theories are starting to make a bit more sense now that Apple seems to be gaining some buzz around some of its TV shows — though its streaming service still doesn't have anything like the reach of Netflix, Disney, or even Amazon.
But Apple's approach to movie-making remains as confusing as ever. Up until recently, Apple was spending lots of money on all kinds of movies, and it was unclear what it was getting out of that.
Apple did grab an Oscar for "Coda" in 2022 — which is a thing lots of streamers would love to have — and some of its other movies, like "Napoleon," have gotten respectful notices from critics.
But in general, Apple's movie arm has seemed like a money pit. That's why Apple's move to pull back on movie spending last year made sense, as did its decision to turn "Wolfs," a made-for-theaters movie starring Pitt and George Clooney, into a streaming-only thing. (That one did bruise some feelings, though.)
Which brings us back to "F1," and what it does and doesn't tell us about Apple's movie ambitions.
The conventional wisdom is that it's hard to get audiences to see anything in a theater that isn't already connected to characters or brands they already know. But that's not always the case — see this year's " Sinners" — and Formula 1 racing is very popular worldwide, and to some degree in the US.
So maybe "F1" will turn out to be a full-blown hit for Apple. And the company will make more big-budget bets on movies people will see in theaters, and eventually on Apple's own streaming service.
But Apple doesn't seem convinced: As Puck's Matt Belloni notes, after F1, Apple has zero big movies planned for theatrical releases the rest of this year or 2026.
Again: That doesn't mean the other movies Apple makes won't succeed solely as something you watch online. But going online-only makes it harder to get top talent for your stuff — that's why Netflix grudgingly agreed to put Greta Gerwig's "Narnia" movie in theaters next year — and it also makes it harder to build interest in those movies for a streaming audience.
I've asked Apple reps for comment, but this is one they never seem inclined to talk about. So I'm not holding my breath.
In the meantime, if you want to hear Apple executives try to explain why the company is making movies, you can check out this Variety feature, which includes photos of CEO Tim Cook and actual racing star Lewis Hamilton standing and walking around Apple's headquarters.
But if you are skeptical about this stuff, you may not come away convinced that you're wrong. Here's Cook, for example: "I know there's a lot of different views out there about why we're into it. We're into it to tell great stories, and we want it to be a great business as well. That's why we're into it, just plain and simple."
Got it? Me neither.