I don't think this has been discussed in not606. I have a lot of respect for Joe Saward, who seems to have an uncanny knack of sniffing out behind-the-scenes F1 stuff even before Eddie Jordan claims his reliable hunches! Saward has recently written about the possibility of computer giant, Apple, buying a significant stake in F1 – perhaps even buying it outright! Such a big interest from the USA based corporation would undoubtedly have an enormous impact. http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-people-are-passing-around-that-crazy-apple-formula-1-rumour-2016-7 http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/apple-rumour-buy-formula-1-use-f1-promote-apple-car https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/notebook-from-middle-england/ Very interesting, and well worth further investigation. If so, a successful deal could alter the way F1 is marketed and viewed – even perhaps overhauling the disastrous* pay to view route which threatens to remove live viewing for free altogether (sooner rather than later). * Bye-bye Sky? In my eyes, the reduction of live F1 being freely available to all has had a negative impact. When the idea was first mooted, I was one of its biggest critics. It seemed obvious to me that it was a short-sighted plan, bound to create friction with sponsors and viewers alike, and doomed for ultimate failure – but very much in line with Bernie Ecclestone's ever shortening agenda to make an extra buck from others of similar mentality, Mr Murdoch…
NO If Apple did F1: All cars would be white with no other logos. Only Apple cars would be allowed to race. No modifications would be allowed other than bodywork covers. Any adjustments would only be allowed through itunesF1 (Apples own mechanics) New faster cars would be sold 2 months after you bought the latest. After 6 months cars would become obsolete due to software update incompatibilities. Cars could only be repaired by Apple otherwise you would be locked out. Only fuel supplied by Apple would be allowed. All cars would only run on Apple tracks. These tracks would have guide rails to ensure all drivers followed the Apple approved route. I am sure you can think of more/better 'If Apple did F1' things...
Always makes me laugh when people used to buy Apple products as an effective boycott against the capitalism and control of Microsoft. Those same people have turned Apple into something even worse than Microsoft now. Do they accept the monster they have now created? As for F1, the last thing it needs is such a huge organisation with a history of doing everything for profit and stashing the money away, to be in charge of a global sport. If Apple had an involvement, then they could be used to reach a new and wider audience, such is the influence of Apple, but it could only be as a partner to F1 and not its ringmaster.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that the core romance of historical and successful sports is often a simple recipe. The moment a 'sport' crosses that ethical threshold and becomes a business is when compromises and external interests begin to remould and reshape what we all initially fell in love with. We have all seen the old black and white photos of yesteryear, where 100'000 of fans stood orderly watching a football match and some distant relative has recalled momentous fairy-tale experiences of such events. That is what sport is about, the glory, the pride, the community, the competition and the rivalry. Poor chairmen and volunteers who kept clubs afloat, not consortiums who overleverage a share option making the clubs insolvent. I suppose my gut says that any vested business interest in any sport, is an automatic compromise by the very entity that wants it to excel and succeed. In relation to apple, they are the new type of world organisation (although currently fully maximised on market share and product strength [effectively in decline] which is why they are probably looking for other revenue opportunities) that operates in digital volume technology, which controls, directs and cultivates its clientele. This is something that Bernie has struggled with, unable to understand it is not acceptable to detract from the core heart of the sport with the sole intention of profit. A company like Apple who are used to glorified and overpriced share prices based on controlled supply and demand, would neither understand or value the core ethics of any sport, let alone F1 - something I would consider a way of life for those inside the community.
Thanks, Smithers. What an excellent comment. I agree the core romance of historical and successful sport will have originally been a simple recipe. WARNING! This next bit is less romantic: Unfortunately, after having been spoiled / tainted / affected / influenced by business ever since sponsorship entered F1 (or football, or whatever), it has already been added to the recipe – and just like putting too much sugar in a cup of tea, it is virtually impossible to take out. The only alternative is to begin again without the unwanted ingredient. In F1 terms, that would mean scrapping it (perhaps not a bad idea!?) and starting again. In reality though, no matter how much one might romanticise its origins, any version of 'the pinnacle' of motor-sport cannot avoid very substantial financing in order to be it! But of course, we do still have something akin to the romanticised notion of early motor-sport. We call it 'club-racing'. Just like the early days – albeit with a lot more technology which, even if you stick to Caterhams, also cannot be undone. It is a bunch of sufficiently well-off and enthusiastic amateurs, who for the most part finance their activities themselves. So, something very close to the original is still here. And I would urge anyone to go and absorb it. Incidentally, I do not use the term 'amateur' as an insult; I mean it as distinct from 'professional' – which by definition requires real money and alters the game into something a little more serious where people do it to make a living. Therefore, professionalism always erodes purity. I also mostly agree with your second paragraph, although I'm not yet ready to draw the same conclusions of your final sentence. But I agree the purist's definition of 'sport' is always compromised by business and investment. Once any profit-seeking entity takes an interest, it cannot avoid influencing it and skewing the notion that the sport was originally based upon. Of course, this includes CVC who have relied almost entirely upon Bernie's guidance to make their investment work…
As I cannot comment much on this, I will be reading only, but with some interest. I would be keen to understand why you think Apple TV would reach a larger audience, and whether that is a global or U.K. centric perspective?
I don't think it's a question of whether or not they will/can reach a larger audience, it's what they intend to extract or delevope from the sport. Obviously they have a controlled product system with a predominant North America customer base, so that would be a potential positive for current or new sponsors - North America has always been an untapped gold mine for F1. The issue with any investor is that they invariably want an ROI (obviously) and they often try and transfer working practises between different businesses. I say businesses, because whilst it often works in centralising and utilising best practise in the normal world - I'm unsure how that transfers or benefits sports? You also have cultural differences that affect harmony when businesses from different contents work together - and Apple are a very unique culture/brand. The final thing I would say, is that Apple are a high value premium brand aimed at a target market - I would say that is something we should be wary of when talking about F1 or sport in general.
I think F1 just needs to work out what it wants to be. It gets all in a huff about fans not understanding it all, but then surely thats just insulting the fans intelligence? Just because the likes of bernie has no idea that sounds does not equal power doesn't mean we all don't get it. You look back at the cars of old, the Lotus', we think of them as game changers, or should be be angry at them, oh they're far to complicated what with their monocoques and the like... Look at that Mercedes, it's turned up and makes more power with less fuel, that's not what we want in the pinnacle of motorsport, we want oil leaking V8's that could maybe lap Silverstone in 2 minutes, but only if the driver is partially on fire. F1 just has to decide, pinnacle of motorsport or a loud shouty show? Trying to tread down the middle has the habbit of pleasing no one. How does this tie into Apple, well Apple at least knows how to work the modern world. Take a free version of Linux, make it look pretty and be reliable, sell it for a billion pounds. It knows people want something showy and it sells it to them, it knows what it's customer wants. It doesn't add a aerial to its phones because thats what they had in the olden days, it keeps it relevant and it keeps it to what the customer wants. Or, an even better Apple trick, it convinces the public of what they want because Apple can make money out of it. I think F1 would be 'less me' if Apple took up a major role, but I also think F1 would get bigger if they were involved.
