Apple reportedly trying to fill Apple TV+ with content back catalog

AppleInsider

Apple TV+ subscribers may have a larger collection of shows to watch in the future, with claims Apple is in talks to license existing movies and TV shows, to bulk up its catalog in a similar way to Netflix and Disney+.

Apple's streaming service Apple TV has relied on the power of original programming to attract customers, but it is still looking at other strategies. Rather than strictly stick to creating its own exclusive content, it is alleged Apple is now seeking to go down the route of its main competitors in having a library of older shows.

Video executives from Apple are in talks with Hollywood studios over show licensing proposals, sources told Bloomberg, specifically for Apple TV+. So far it has yet to acquire any shows for its back catalog, but that may change over time.

The sources insist Apple will continue to center its service around original content efforts. The move to license existing shows to add to the catalog will certainly provide customers with more to watch, but it will also bring Apple TV+ more in line with its main rivals.

Netflix started streaming with a collection of movies and shows it licensed before moving into original content, but it still offers an extensive back catalog of content. Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, Hulu, and others follow a similar path, providing new content alongside a large archive of third-party shows and films.

By contrast, Apple's limited selection of programming consists of just original shows, and counts at fewer than 30, compared to the thousands each of its rivals offer. At the same time, Apple TV+ does offer the advantage of cost, being offered at $4.99 per month or free for a year as part of a hardware purchase.

While Bloomberg calls this a "subtle strategy shift," if the report is accurate, it is anything but that. Apple CEO Tim Cook has often said that offering reruns, or other programming, wasn't anything that Apple was looking at with any seriousness.

Building the catalog may help it attract more users. It is claimed Apple TV+ achieved 10 million sign-ups by February. Though this seems like a lot, Disney+ managed to exceed 10 million users within a day of its US launch, and is currently beyond 50 million users, while Netflix is thought to have added 16 million subscribers during the first quarter.

GeorgeBMac

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

crowley

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Seems to me that the article you’re responding to is saying they’re doing exactly what you’re telling them to do.

It may have been the plan all along, start small and build slowly to ensure scalability and that they could start with a low price and flexibility.

CarmB

Had it not been for the virus, Apple would likely have had more original content available by now and looking ahead, the content that will be available by year's end will be greatly diminished. 

As such, it's logical that Apple is seeking ways to build out its content. Really, right now, there is only one way to do that, namely acquire content that had been created pre-virus. 

The choice right now is between having such a dearth of content that Apple will have a hard time maintaining subscribers once the annual free subscriptions run out or trying to fill out the line-up with some existing third-party content, albeit at the expense of the overall quality of the offerings. Neither option is as good as Apple's original plan, namely develop as much quality content as possible and build it out during the first year to offer up enough of it to justify a modest monthly cost. 

The thing is, this virus is - we can only hope - a once-in-a-century occurance that Apple certainly can't be blamed for not anticipating. Had AppleTV+ been launched a year earlier, it would look quite different and I suspect we'd be having a differrent conversation.

tmay

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Just some perspective

Studio Entertainment 

Disney's Studio Entertainment segment is engaged in motion picture production and distribution through the Walt Disney Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, and other companies. The segment also produces and distributes live entertainment and music, among other activities. Revenue comes from licensing motion pictures to theaters; sale of motion pictures in DVD, Blu-ray, and other formats; and licensing fees, stage play ticket sales, and post-production services.

Studio Entertainment's revenue grew 10.6% during FY 2019 to $11.1 billion, comprising about 16% of both Disney's total revenue and operating income. The segment's operating income fell 10.6% to $2.7 billion in FY 2019.

Geven how profitable Apple is, you can forgive them for not running out and blowing "excess cash" on a business that doesn't earn anywhere near the margins that they currently enjoy for services and devices. Current leaders in streaming aren't actually generating piles of cash.

Compared to Netflix;

Netflix's Financials 

Netflix has posted negative cash flow since 2011 due largely to the company's strategy of spending heavily to finance growth, including the production of original entertainment. Despite that negative cash flow, Netflix has seen significant gains to its net income and revenue in recent years. For the fiscal year 2019, annual net income was $1.9 billion, up 54.1% year-over-year (YOY).

In 2019, Netflix reported revenue of $20.2 billion, up 27.6% YOY. Like net income, Netflix's revenue has grown at an impressive clip. Since 2015, for instance, revenue has nearly tripled and net income has grown by more than 14 times.

Apple's revenues from 2019; $260 B and net profit, $55.3 B

It suggests that Apple doesn't need to rush into any large M&A, but can grow its studio and media assets organically, while licensing content.

Appleish

They should buy HBO. Or Disney. Or Both. Buy something. I will not subscribe to more than 2 (maybe 3) streaming services. 

GeorgeBMac

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Seems to me that the article you’re responding to is saying they’re doing exactly what you’re telling them to do.

It may have been the plan all along, start small and build slowly to ensure scalability and that they could start with a low price and flexibility.

I was responding to the article's suggestion that branching into older media was a significant change from their original intent to have self-produced stuff only.

But, you may be right.   Only Apple knows what their long term plans were and are.

randominternetperson

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Can we save this post so we can come back 2 years from now to see if GBM nailed it or is just another of a long line of Apple doubters who would have had Apple avoid a successful bet.

tmay

randominternetperson said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Can we save this post so we can come back 2 years from now to see if GBM nailed it or is just another of a long line of Apple doubters who would have had Apple avoid a successful bet.

Just to note that Apple won the streaming distribution rights for Tom Hanks "Greyhound" film; there will be no theatrical distribution (albeit a single theater may show it to qualify for various awards).

apple ][

Apple TV has not been around for that long. It's still an infant.

Even though a lot of the recent content has not been up my alley, it is still far, far too early for anybody to judge their efforts yet. Give it some years and then we'll see where we are at.

Marvin

CarmB said:

Had it not been for the virus, Apple would likely have had more original content available by now and looking ahead, the content that will be available by year's end will be greatly diminished.

The virus has only been affecting things for a couple of months. That would only amount to a couple of shows. The article says Apple has less than 30 shows. That's nowhere near enough content to sustain an entire global streaming service with an audience in the tens of millions.

What people sometimes forget about old content is that it's only old for people who have seen it already. All the content that was made in the 90s and earlier is original content to someone who is 10-20 years old because it was made before they were born.

This has happened online with content like Bob Ross the painter. He died 10 years before Youtube launched and millions of people now watch his shows on Youtube.

Also, original content will itself become old and they're not going to remove that from the service.

Disney's service is popular because of their large back catalog of content.

Sony owns a massive collection of content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Pictures_Television_programs

There's a list of Amazon Prime content here:

https://www.finder.com/in/amazon-prime-tv-shows

Popular TV categories are dramas, comedies, murder mystery, sci-fi and kids shows.

https://www.sweetieandgeek.com/good-detective-shows-on-netflix/
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-scifi-television-series-of-all-time
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/greatest-television-dramas-of-all-time
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/funniest-tv-shows-ever
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/my-favorite-cartoons-of-all-time

If they can get maybe 20 shows from each list, it's a quick way to boost the content library to maintain interest in the service as a whole.

I would like to see more emphasis on movie content over TV shows, especially movie franchises like James Bond. Disney owns a lot of this but there are others:

https://www.filmsite.org/series-boxoffice.html

The production quality of The Banker was up there with any movies being produced today and far above Apple's current TV content. They have partnerships with some great talent but they aren't producing things they normally do. Spielberg is a great movie producer but hasn't worked on many great TV shows, he's practically a one-man Hollywood from his movies:

https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/steven-spielberg/credits/175558/

Oprah made her name from talk shows but for Apple she has a book club.

I think they can integrate movies better into the subscription service by having a credit system. Each month the subscription can give people credits to watch movies and they can save up over time so they can use them when they have a vacation. This would allow people to use their monthly payments towards movies rentals and Apple can put the entire worldwide movie catalog in there. Base subscription ($5) can include 2 movies per month, the next up ($10) can offer 5 movies, then 15 movies ($20). $20/month to be able to watch 15 movies per month from the entire worldwide collection of movies would be an amazing service.

Not everyone is going to watch that many movies per month so that helps with the costs but they can roll some of the credits over and have a gifting system. So maybe grandparents subscribe to the service and by the end of the year, they had 5 credits each month rolled over and at Christmas, they can gift their grandkids 60 movie credits and they can watch all the Disney movies because they are rentals.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/genre/movies-kids-family/id4410

They'd just have credit topups if they run out. Just now there's not really a subscription service that is the go to place for movie rentals. Apple TV+ can be that service and that would make it stand out from Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Disney and people would choose it on top of the others. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon would be in competition, Disney would be a must for families and Apple TV+ would be for movie fans. It counters the negative point about the iTunes rentals, which is having to pay for each title:

https://www.lifewire.com/on-demand-tv-movie-streaming-services-3486074

When it's a credit being spent and there's a free viewing period for discoverability, it changes the whole system. If they can go one further and make a giphy-like system that allows making up to 10 second SD clips from mainstream movies with captions, that can be used as marketing for the service.

dewme

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Way too harsh. I think Apple was simply trying to apply same formula that's served them well, i.e., quality over quantity, in a different arena. It was an aspirational strategy that didn't work out exactly as expected because customers in the streaming market expect gobs of choices even if 90% of the choices are pure garbage. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten verbally abused for spending 20-30 minutes trying in vain to find something worth watching on Netflix or Amazon. At some point I end up on Disney+ with some nostalgic inspired re-watch, which doesn't thrill me, or relinquish control of the tiny Apple remote to my spouse and grab my iPad. Sigh...

StrangeDays

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

Ah the old "But Apple is arrogant!" trope. Nah. I'd gladly pay $0/5 bucks a month for a show or two I actively watch in a month. That's the price of a beer. It's fine. Armchair CEOs don't know much about much.

Showtime is $12/mo and has one good show, Homeland, which just ended. The rest of their lineup is a bunch of no big deals that aren't worth paying for, let alone $12/mo. If they can make that work, I don't doubt that Apple can find success.

https://www.showtime.com/#getstarted/whatson/series

fastasleep

GeorgeBMac said:

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

Gee, that totally sounds like Apple. 

SpamSandwich

As I said long ago, Apple needs to buy a studio and their entire library of content... like Sony Pictures or MGM... or both.

GeorgeBMac

randominternetperson said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

In the early days of TV families gathered around the TV watching new and original content -- such as the variety shows, westerns, sitcoms, etc.  But then, for the most part, that's all that was available.  And, after dark, for the family, except for reading a book, that's all there was to do anyway.

But now we have 70 years of movies and TV content available to stream -- along with a plethora of other options provided by gaming, social media and the like.

Apple can't roll back that clock.

Not only has time moved on, but Apple is an inexperienced player trying to compete with a multitude of highly polished organizations who are very good at what they do.

The whole thing sounds like it is poorly thought out to me.

If Apple wants to be competitive in media, it needs to invest some of that excess cash in its business -- maybe by buying one of those major players or acquiring a stable of existing content -- rather than handing it out like candy to their stockholders.

Can we save this post so we can come back 2 years from now to see if GBM nailed it or is just another of a long line of Apple doubters who would have had Apple avoid a successful bet.

So, you think Apple is perfect and can do no wrong?    HaHaHaHa!

Even Steve -- maybe especially Steve -- would have had a belly laugh at that nonsense.

Actually, for the fools that think Apple can do nothing wrong, "apple hater" and "Apple Doubter" are simply convenient ways to dismiss an argument that cannot be dismissed by either fact of logic.   It is, instead, the argument of the weak.

In this case, Yes, Steve waded into a mature music market and transformed it.   But, he did so by using revolutionary technology to solve a fundamental problem in the business.   Here, with TV programming Apple has neither of those two ingredients.   So, there is simply no reason to believe they can win by doing what other, mature players are already doing and have done for decades. 

GeorgeBMac

StrangeDays said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

Ah the old "But Apple is arrogant!" trope. Nah. I'd gladly pay $0/5 bucks a month for a show or two I actively watch in a month. That's the price of a beer. It's fine. Armchair CEOs don't know much about much.

Showtime is $12/mo and has one good show, Homeland, which just ended. The rest of their lineup is a bunch of no big deals that aren't worth paying for, let alone $12/mo. If they can make that work, I don't doubt that Apple can find success.

https://www.showtime.com/#getstarted/whatson/series

Apple arrogant?   Well yeh.   Apple has been guilty of that more than once -- particularly over the past 5 years or so.   The butterfly keyboard is an example of that.

So, is there any reason to think that Apple will succeed in producing a subscription service using only original content that is any better than that from experienced houses who have been doing it multiple decades?   Very simply the only thing Apple is bringing to the table is its own name (which is an arrogant thing to do!) and a bunch of money.

Where Apple has succeeded over these past 4-5 decades has been by:   Seeing a problem or a hole and filling it with something so incredibly good that nobody can dislodge them from being the best.   I don't see those ingredients here in an Apple, Original content only streaming service.   Instead I see one more player in an already crowded market.

So, please tell me what Apple brings to the table here (with an original content only subscription) -- besides their name?

CarmB

When I posted previously about the impact of the virus I was thinking more in terms of the long-term impact as opposed to what has happened so far. Yes as we speak, the number of delayed shows is likely small but if we take this out to the late fall, which is when millions of one-year free subscriptions expire - mine included - the impact will be much more substantial. If Apple keeps the subscription fee low enough, I see Apple’s offering as a compliment to your Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. not a competitor. For me it’s not either AppleTV+  or Netflix or Amazon Prime. I’m happy with Amazon Prime - cheaper in Canada - and Netflix. So my view on Apple’s offering is not will there be a ton of content because I already have that with the other services in addition to a deep library of purchased movies (in excess of 500 titles). On the other hand, for a small monthly fee, if Apple delivers a decent collection of original programs, that strikes me as something worth having. The production delays that have, and will happen for a while, are impacting Apple’s ability to build out its original content. So if Apple wants to be at a particular point by the end of this year to retain consumers who had the service for free, well, Apple clearly has to explore ways to build out that content it might not have originally intended to explore.

I know that not everyone has a lot of purchased movies, especially younger consumers who haven’t had decades to collect them. As well, not everyone wants to buy movies outright. Still, if you regard Apple’s offering as a compliment as opposed to an alternative to other content options - of which there are many - it isn’t crucial for Apple to acquire a ton of older titles. As well, if the cost of adding those titles transforms Apple’s service into a competitor rather than a compliment, personally that’s not a win. It means paying for a library of titles I don’t really have a use for to get access to the original content I do want. 

Perhaps if the current situation forces Apple to add third-party content what it could offer is a two-tier pricing model. Pay X for Apple original content and more for that plus the other titles. For that matter, offer the two separately and give those who want the older titles and not Apple’s original content, an inexpensive way to have that. If Prime and Netflix put such tiering on the table, I could see many opting for the original programming for less money. I know I would. 

Right now we’re being forced to pay for a lot of content we don’t have much use for. I’m paying every month for hundreds, if not thousands, of titles I’ve either already seen or have no interest in. After years of complaining that we were paying for hundreds of channels with not much worthwhile content, I wonder if we may well be right back where we started. 

fastasleep

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Apple thinking it can become a serious player in the streaming market with only new and original content is based on hubris rather than reality.

Ah the old "But Apple is arrogant!" trope. Nah. I'd gladly pay $0/5 bucks a month for a show or two I actively watch in a month. That's the price of a beer. It's fine. Armchair CEOs don't know much about much.

Showtime is $12/mo and has one good show, Homeland, which just ended. The rest of their lineup is a bunch of no big deals that aren't worth paying for, let alone $12/mo. If they can make that work, I don't doubt that Apple can find success.

https://www.showtime.com/#getstarted/whatson/series

Apple arrogant?   Well yeh.   Apple has been guilty of that more than once -- particularly over the past 5 years or so.   The butterfly keyboard is an example of that.

So, is there any reason to think that Apple will succeed in producing a subscription service using only original content that is any better than that from experienced houses who have been doing it multiple decades?   Very simply the only thing Apple is bringing to the table is its own name (which is an arrogant thing to do!) and a bunch of money.

mattinoz

AppleInsider said:

While Bloomberg calls this a "subtle strategy shift," if the report is accurate, it is anything but that. Apple CEO Tim Cook has often said that offering reruns, or other programming, wasn't anything that Apple was looking at with any seriousness.

Which we know is Apples' way of saying "we have nothing to announce at this time even thou 30+ people are working on it"

mjtomlin

Umm, yeah. As a few others have pointed out, tv+ is still a new service. Apple has the money to invest in this service for several years while they build out a decent sized catalog of content, before they need to start seeing any kind of return.

And again these content providers/distributors do not compete with each other in the normal sense. It’s not like you pick one or two and all the others become pointless. When you’re bored with one, cancel and join another. It’s that simple. I usually join up to Netflix for a month, binge on a show someone said was good, then cancel the service. There are no penalties or downsides to this model.