Apple TV+ drama 'Defending Jacob' reportedly setting records

Posted:
in General Discussion
While Apple has not revealed any viewing figures for Apple TV+, industry sources say the new "Defending Jacob" drama is a hit with higher viewing figures, and audience engagement, than most shows on the service.

Chris Evans in Defending Jacob
Chris Evans in Defending Jacob


"Defending Jacob" is a gripping slow-burn drama on Apple TV+ and industry sources say that it's proving to be one of the service's most compelling shows with high viewing figures and viewer retention.

Hollywood entertainment publication Deadline cites unnamed sources saying that most viewers who sample the show come back for more. The first three episodes of the series were released on May 1 and reportedly the vast majority of viewers watched all of them.

Then what Deadline describes as nearly all of them, came back to watch episode 4 when it was released the following week.

Aside from people who watched on release date, sources say that the audience grew by five times during the show's first 10 days of being available. This reportedly puts "Defending Jacob" behind only "The Morning Show" as the most popular series on Apple TV+.

The first five episodes of "Defending Jacob" are now available on Apple TV+, and the remaining three are due to be released weekly on Fridays.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,084member
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.
    williamlondonlkruppMacQcleavingthebiggStrangeDayslolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 20
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    How would Deadline have any access to viewer data unless Apple leaked it to them?
    entropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 20
    How would Deadline have any access to viewer data unless Apple leaked it to them?
    Presumably from third-party monitoring companies like Neilson (if there are competitors to Neilson). 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 20
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 803member
    How would Deadline have any access to viewer data unless Apple leaked it to them?
    That is a possibility since they claim "unnamed sources".  Another possibility could be tracking data gathered from smart TV's.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    ITGUYINSDITGUYINSD Posts: 247member
    We've enjoyed Jacob but one of the best on ATV+?  Not so sure about that.  For us, Servant was our favorite (with Dickenson a close 2nd).  Truth Be Told and For All Mankind also good.
    MacQcwilliamlondonlolliver
  • Reply 6 of 20
    ITGUYINSD said:
    We've enjoyed Jacob but one of the best on ATV+?  Not so sure about that.  For us, Servant was our favorite (with Dickenson a close 2nd).  Truth Be Told and For All Mankind also good.
    How is Snoopy in Space?  It would be funny if it had the same plot as For All Mankind (my person Apple TV+ favorite).
    BeatsStrangeDayslolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 20
    1348513485 Posts: 179member
    Yeah, "Jacob" is pretty good.

    But for cripessakes can they turn the lights on once in a while? Mood setting is one thing, endlessly dim, for apparently months on end as the storytelling goes, is quite another.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 20
    XedXed Posts: 820member
    Beats said:
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.
    No one should expect that the catalogs would be the same, but you should expect that two streaming services that launched at the same time be compared and contrasted. Even with the short-lived option for a free year if you both a new Apple core product people will still want to see how each streaming service compares.

    In the end there are two constants: Whom do I want to give my money and what content do I want to give my time. Because of those, Apple absolutely should be (and will be) compared to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, NBC, Disney, etc.

    I've watched more stuff on Apple TV+ (I really enjoy Home) than on Disney+ but I've still recommended Disney+ more because of the content. Apple's position means they can sit on this for years like how MS has functioned since the 90s, and hopefully they'll either have created or bought enough content to make it worth pay $5 per month, but right now that's not something I'm considering doing, and I pay more per month for several other streaming services, including HBO NOW just to get the $3 off when HBO MAX launches later this month.
    edited May 2020 entropys
  • Reply 9 of 20
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,699member
    How would Deadline have any access to viewer data unless Apple leaked it to them?
    Because stats companies have people who tell them what they're watching and whether or not they liked it. I did that for a while when I was a student.

    Oh, and your smart TV will  tell them, even if you're Apple TV doesn't.

    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 20
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,699member

    Beats said:
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.

    I'm not even sure it's true, and even if it's not, I don't see a problem. It's going to take years for Apple to build a store chest of original shows that'll draw in new customers. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand how real life works.

    williamlondonBeats
  • Reply 11 of 20
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,084member
    Xed said:
    Beats said:
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.
    No one should expect that the catalogs would be the same, but you should expect that two streaming services that launched at the same time be compared and contrasted. Even with the short-lived option for a free year if you both a new Apple core product people will still want to see how each streaming service compares.

    In the end there are two constants: Whom do I want to give my money and what content do I want to give my time. Because of those, Apple absolutely should be (and will be) compared to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, NBC, Disney, etc.

    I've watched more stuff on Apple TV+ (I really enjoy Home) than on Disney+ but I've still recommended Disney+ more because of the content. Apple's position means they can sit on this for years like how MS has functioned since the 90s, and hopefully they'll either have created or bought enough content to make it worth pay $5 per month, but right now that's not something I'm considering doing, and I pay more per month for several other streaming services, including HBO NOW just to get the $3 off when HBO MAX launches later this month.

    It's just a strange comparison and an excuse to call Apple a "failure".

    A better comparison would be Disney+ original content(Mandalorian) Vs. Apple TV. They're 2 different beasts. in a year Apple will be filled to the brim with original content and Disney will be, well, Disney.

    In no way am I saying Disney+ sucks(it does not) but we're intentionally comparing Apples to oranges to make Apple look like a failure. We can also move the goalposts by comparing original content in which Apple will eat up Disney for having more, but that's unfair too.

    In 5 years Apple TV+ will be a beast with all original content and tons of shows and movies but in less than one year? Come on now.
  • Reply 12 of 20
    XedXed Posts: 820member
    Beats said:
    Xed said:
    Beats said:
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.
    No one should expect that the catalogs would be the same, but you should expect that two streaming services that launched at the same time be compared and contrasted. Even with the short-lived option for a free year if you both a new Apple core product people will still want to see how each streaming service compares.

    In the end there are two constants: Whom do I want to give my money and what content do I want to give my time. Because of those, Apple absolutely should be (and will be) compared to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, NBC, Disney, etc.

    I've watched more stuff on Apple TV+ (I really enjoy Home) than on Disney+ but I've still recommended Disney+ more because of the content. Apple's position means they can sit on this for years like how MS has functioned since the 90s, and hopefully they'll either have created or bought enough content to make it worth pay $5 per month, but right now that's not something I'm considering doing, and I pay more per month for several other streaming services, including HBO NOW just to get the $3 off when HBO MAX launches later this month.

    It's just a strange comparison and an excuse to call Apple a "failure".

    A better comparison would be Disney+ original content(Mandalorian) Vs. Apple TV. They're 2 different beasts. in a year Apple will be filled to the brim with original content and Disney will be, well, Disney.

    In no way am I saying Disney+ sucks(it does not) but we're intentionally comparing Apples to oranges to make Apple look like a failure. We can also move the goalposts by comparing original content in which Apple will eat up Disney for having more, but that's unfair too.

    In 5 years Apple TV+ will be a beast with all original content and tons of shows and movies but in less than one year? Come on now.
    Why would you even assume that one has to be a failure for the other to be a success? It's simply about value for your money. I don't pay $7 per month for Disney even though they have done an amazing job with content and delivery, but I do pay for Netflix, Hulu, and HBO NOW (for the upcoming HBP MAX)

     Those three are each well above the cost of Disney+, but since I don't pay for Disney+ you want to call it a failure? Um… no, just as I wouldn't call Apple TV+ a failure because I wouldn't have access to it today if it hadn't been offered for free for a year with my iPhone purchase.

    These are all streaming services and so they should all be equally compared for their cost/benefit by each user. You trying to ignore this simple fact of commerce doesn't do Apple any favors.

    I hope that "In 5 years Apple TV+ will be a beast" but I don't know that. Neither do you. Neither does Apple. Again, you're not doing Apple any favors with your wishful thinking that ignores reality to blindly buoy a company you like.
    entropys
  • Reply 13 of 20
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,596member
    It’s a solid offering though, like most other decent shows, dour & serious. We’re also liking “Trying” to pick us up a bit (though international mileage my vary).
    edited May 2020 lolliver
  • Reply 14 of 20
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,596member
    Beats said:
    Xed said:
    Beats said:
    If true, then I'm not one bit surprised. I don't know why people expected Apple to have a lineup of hit shows on day one, then called a failure for not having more hit shows than Netflix or Disney(yes Apple is being compared to Disney's century of content.)

    Hit shows will come organically. Common sense, man.
    No one should expect that the catalogs would be the same, but you should expect that two streaming services that launched at the same time be compared and contrasted. Even with the short-lived option for a free year if you both a new Apple core product people will still want to see how each streaming service compares.

    In the end there are two constants: Whom do I want to give my money and what content do I want to give my time. Because of those, Apple absolutely should be (and will be) compared to Netflix, Hulu, HBO, NBC, Disney, etc.

    I've watched more stuff on Apple TV+ (I really enjoy Home) than on Disney+ but I've still recommended Disney+ more because of the content. Apple's position means they can sit on this for years like how MS has functioned since the 90s, and hopefully they'll either have created or bought enough content to make it worth pay $5 per month, but right now that's not something I'm considering doing, and I pay more per month for several other streaming services, including HBO NOW just to get the $3 off when HBO MAX launches later this month.

    It's just a strange comparison and an excuse to call Apple a "failure".

    A better comparison would be Disney+ original content(Mandalorian) Vs. Apple TV. They're 2 different beasts. in a year Apple will be filled to the brim with original content and Disney will be, well, Disney.

    In no way am I saying Disney+ sucks(it does not) but we're intentionally comparing Apples to oranges to make Apple look like a failure. We can also move the goalposts by comparing original content in which Apple will eat up Disney for having more, but that's unfair too.

    In 5 years Apple TV+ will be a beast with all original content and tons of shows and movies but in less than one year? Come on now.
    ATV+ does have to be a success. All the while people are critiquing/praising the service they’re all using the App/Cannels/tvOS/ATV. Classic deferred intent.  They really need to clean up the 3rd party service integration though, especially 3rd to 1st party profile mapping. Some services should ditch Apps and go with Channels only.
    edited May 2020 williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 20
    entropysentropys Posts: 2,880member
    XED has it pretty right. At the moment the right price is free. It just doesn’t have enough there to justify a subscription. As Apple isn’t buying in existing content, it is going it take a long time to build. At present, being a perk of buying Apple hardware it is good and priced correctly. I think Apple will keep having to offer it that way for a couple of years more to keep subscription numbers up until there is sufficient content to justify a sub. Not a great solution though as people watch the content as fast as it is made, so it is a never ending ratchet, and of course people will get quite used to free.  
    And it isn’t in isolation, other streaming services with a deeper library of content will make it hard for Apple to get people coming in the door on the service alone.  I think they will eventually either have to sell the content to others (maybe after a year or two of release), or fully embrace the free with hardware purchase model permanently so a component of the hardware purchase is the subscription cost.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 20
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,127member
    entropys said:
    XED has it pretty right. At the moment the right price is free. It just doesn’t have enough there to justify a subscription. As Apple isn’t buying in existing content, it is going it take a long time to build. At present, being a perk of buying Apple hardware it is good and priced correctly. I think Apple will keep having to offer it that way for a couple of years more to keep subscription numbers up until there is sufficient content to justify a sub. Not a great solution though as people watch the content as fast as it is made, so it is a never ending ratchet, and of course people will get quite used to free.  
    And it isn’t in isolation, other streaming services with a deeper library of content will make it hard for Apple to get people coming in the door on the service alone.  I think they will eventually either have to sell the content to others (maybe after a year or two of release), or fully embrace the free with hardware purchase model permanently so a component of the hardware purchase is the subscription cost.
    Keep in mind. Their service lives side by side in the TV app. I believe it takes two shows for people to commit to a platform and be willing to pay. I pay for CBS for Star Trek Discovery. They kept me with Picard. I actually cancelled after the first season and signed up for 2. 
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 17 of 20
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,127member
    I believe the missing element is that the competing services live side by side with Apple TV+ on Apple devices in the TV App. Apple makes money from these as well and should the find 2 or their shows over time that resonate with different groups of viewers they can build traction. They know they have to build content to ensure content providers don’t abandon their platform like what happened on the Mac when the depended solely on 3rd parties for applications. 
  • Reply 18 of 20
    jeromecjeromec Posts: 110member
    The first three episodes of the series were released on May 1 and reportedly the vast majority of viewers watched all of them.
    The first three episodes of the series were released on April 24, not on May 1.
    If Deadline could not get that right.
  • Reply 19 of 20
    lolliverlolliver Posts: 422member
    One of the factors in which service you prefer is how much time you wish to spend watching content. Netflix has made no secret of the fact they have designed their service to be geared towards binge watching. They have a large library of content and have algorithms to recommend your next binge watch show after you've completed your current one. Netflix originals have also  become more about quantity than quality. They are producing more and more shows all the time however less and less of these have been stand out hits. Many of them though are "good enough" to fill in the time. 

    While HBO, Apple TV+ & Disney+ may not have as many new original shows being released as Netflix I find the quality of those shows in general are above the Netflix originals. I don't have a lot of free time to watch TV so for me quality trumps volume. I find Netflix approach to be overwhelming when it comes to finding quality content. There is far too much to sort through in order to find something worth the time.

    Apple TV+ is free for me at the moment but I have enjoyed enough of the shows to be worth continuing with a paid subscription if there is going to be at least 1 new or returning series per month that I enjoy. Less than $10 a month for that is a great deal. If the pace of new releases slowed down I might reconsider but I imagine it is more likely to increase. 

    Disney+ has only had a few new releases that have interested me. However, I have young kids so the shows I get to watch on the service are just a bonus. My kids have almost completely abandoned Netflix since Disney+ came out. 

    If you would rather have the largest library of titles possible for the least cost then Netflix may be the preferred option. 
  • Reply 20 of 20
    XedXed Posts: 820member
    lolliver said:
    They have a large library of content and have algorithms to recommend your next binge watch show after you've completed your current one. 
    One way I use Netflix is to find other content that is similar. They do this better than anyone else. Even if they don't have the title they've added the title and connected it to other titles they do have that are similar in nature.
    edited May 2020 lolliver
Sign In or Register to comment.