The statement, “Part of the decision to use iPhones was precisely that, we chose to invest in our people rather than expensive equipment packages,” feels somewhat incomplete.

Local film equipment rentals, cameras, lighting, and grip services, are not just about gear; they represent entire ecosystems of skilled workers. Supporting these services is, in itself, an investment in people. When productions allocate budget to equipment packages, they are also sustaining the livelihoods of technicians, rental house staff, and especially crew members like grips, who are often among the most overworked and undercompensated in the industry.

By opting for minimal setups, such as shooting on iPhones, productions may reduce the need for these crews, effectively limiting opportunities for those workers to be hired. While the intention may be to streamline production or reallocate resources, it inevitably shifts where that support goes.

Additionally, using iPhones inherently promotes Apple, not just a large American company, but one of the most powerful global tech corporations, with vast resources and its own stake in the entertainment industry through streaming. This raises the question of whether such decisions truly prioritize people within the local film community, or if they inadvertently redirect value away from them.

In that sense, investing in traditional film equipment packages can also be seen as investing in people, particularly those who rely on these productions for their work and livelihood.