Apple’s new Apple TV ident has been getting plenty of attention, most of it centred not on the final animation, but on the unexpected way it was created. What looks, at first glance, like a glossy piece of CGI is actually a real object: a sculpted glass Apple TV logo filmed under shifting coloured lights, captured in-camera rather than rendered on a workstation.
It is undeniably beautiful. It is also a curious move, and perhaps a revealing one. Especially when viewed alongside Coca-Cola’s very different (and heavily criticised) decision to use AI to create the characters in this year’s Christmas advert.
The two pieces sit at opposite ends of the spectrum. Coke chose a technical shortcut for a brief that needed warmth and honesty. Apple chose painstaking craft for a brief that didn’t obviously require it.
And that contrast raises a worthwhile question: when does the process matter more than the outcome?
A beautiful design that most viewers will read as CGI
The finished ident shimmers with colour and refractions. If you’ve seen the behind-the-scenes footage shared by Apple’s partners, the craftsmanship is impressive: real glass panels, physical lighting rigs, camera passes, gels, hand-built setups that echo a more analogue, tactile era of filmmaking.
The trouble is that almost no one will know. For the vast majority of viewers, the ident will register as a slick 3D render, something made in Houdini or Cinema 4D. There’s nothing in its form to suggest it’s a physical object. Nothing rough. Nothing imperfect. No tell-tale textures or physics that betray its analogue DNA.
Without the making-of film circulating online, most people would never guess.
This is quite different to the Coke example, where the problem was how clearly artificial the AI-generated characters appeared. Their creative team relied on the wrong tool for the job, and the shortcut was obvious. Apple, in contrast, has taken the longest route possible to produce something essentially indistinguishable from a digital animation.
Which brings us back to intent.
If the audience can’t tell, who is this really for?
Some commentators have already suggested that the ‘real’ work here isn’t the ident at all, but the behind-the-scenes featurette. It seems plausible. Apple has a long history of elevating craft, from product videos showing aluminium shavings in slow motion, to obsessive attention on tolerances and finishes. Visualising the process has become part of the brand’s mythology.
In that light, the ident becomes almost a performative gesture. A way of saying: “Look at what we can still do. Look what happens when technology, human skill, and patience collide.” There is a quiet arrogance to it, but not an unpleasant one. More a creative flex than a functional necessity.
And for a streaming service jostling for position against Disney, Prime, and Netflix, it also positions Apple as the studio that still believes in physical craft; the one that draws on cinema’s heritage rather than chasing the quickest, cheapest pipeline.
A few counterpoints worth acknowledging
Some designers argue the choice is valid simply because it elevates the medium. If everything is trending towards digital shortcuts and AI-assisted workflows, a project like this demonstrates that physical craft still has a place, even when it’s harder to justify on paper.
Others see it as misaligned effort. If the outcome doesn’t feel different to the average viewer, then the time and cost become indulgence rather than insight.
And there’s a practical angle too: in an age where brands are under pressure to be efficient, sustainable, and ROI-driven, a studio-built physical sculpture for a five-second sting might be criticised as a poor use of resources.
The truth probably sits somewhere between admiration and eyebrow-raising.
Parallels with Coke, but from the opposite direction
What’s interesting is how neatly this mirrors the Coca-Cola situation, albeit in reverse.
Coke reached for an emerging tool without considering whether it could deliver the emotional texture the story demanded. Apple avoided the digital pipeline entirely, even though the ident’s structure is so abstract that CGI would have been the natural, and arguably more sensible, route.
One project suffered because it cut corners. The other may have over-invested in them. Both raise the same broader theme: technology isn’t neutral. It has to be aligned to the intention of the work.
So, was the effort worth it?
In a narrow sense, probably not. The ident does not feel radically different to a digital simulation, and for most viewers there will be no added value in knowing it was filmed for real. But in a symbolic sense, it may achieve exactly what Apple wanted.
It reminds creative communities, and perhaps competitors, that physical craft is still part of the brand’s DNA. It offers a counter-narrative to the accelerating push towards AI-generated content. And it reinforces the mythos of Apple as the company where detail still matters, even when no one is looking closely enough to appreciate it.
That, I suspect, is the real play. The ident is the piece of work; the making-of is the message.
And when you view it that way, the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
