To keep just the three parts of the Apple One bundle I actually use would cost more with their individual prices than the complete bundle.
Guess it depends on which three items one is interested in. In my case, it’s Apple TV+ ($129 a year), FItness+ ($99.99 a year) and News+ ($16.99 a month). That works out to $432.87 annually. Apple One costs $44.95 a month in Canada which comes to $539.40. What I found is that I get more bang for my buck by forgoing Apple News+ and instead going with a digital subscription to a Toronto daily that was about $40 for the first year and this year is costing just shy of $126 annually. So going the route I did, it’s costing me about $355 rather than the $539.40 I’d be paying for Apple One. The news package is not as extensive, certainly, but roughly $184 a year is well worth saving. The additional news content is just not enough to justify paying so much more every month. I could save a heck of a lot more by only carrying Fitness+ and Apple TV+ for half the year, that sort of thing. What I can’t justify is paying in excess of $500 a year in part for a bunch of services I really don’t need. Apple doesn’t offer the bundle I’d like to have, namely TV/Fitness/News, which, I suspect, many others would flock to if offered. The very combo I want is the one Apple doesn’t put on the table. Kind of reminds me of the packaging cable providers were notorious for back in the day.
To keep just the three parts of the Apple One bundle I actually use would cost more with their individual prices than the complete bundle.
Guess it depends on which three items one is interested in. In my case, it’s Apple TV+ ($129 a year), FItness+ ($99.99 a year) and News+ ($16.99 a month). That works out to $432.87 annually. Apple One costs $44.95 a month in Canada which comes to $539.40. What I found is that I get more bang for my buck by forgoing Apple News+ and instead going with a digital subscription to a Toronto daily that was about $40 for the first year and this year is costing just shy of $126 annually. So going the route I did, it’s costing me about $355 rather than the $539.40 I’d be paying for Apple One. The news package is not as extensive, certainly, but roughly $184 a year is well worth saving. The additional news content is just not enough to justify paying so much more every month. I could save a heck of a lot more by only carrying Fitness+ and Apple TV+ for half the year, that sort of thing. What I can’t justify is paying in excess of $500 a year in part for a bunch of services I really don’t need. Apple doesn’t offer the bundle I’d like to have, namely TV/Fitness/News, which, I suspect, many others would flock to if offered. The very combo I want is the one Apple doesn’t put on the table. Kind of reminds me of the packaging cable providers were notorious for back in the day.
Excellent post; this demonstrates the maxim of paying for the value you personally perceive. There is a convenience factor to be considered as well - some may value all of their "stuff" in one place. On the flip side, as you succinctly point out, there is perceived waste in paying for a bundle with features not used. All this is a very personal choice, something I don't think we had much of in the cable days. I suspect there are many people that simply can't decide or don't really know what they value, and simply overbuy. I think of it as something of a game, and rather enjoy buying a month subscription where there is something I want, watch it, then cancel it. Value received, but I had to plan and push buttons. That's unappealing to many used to vegging out on the sofa with a remote and surfing.
My guess is business schools now teach MBA candidates the virtues of the subscription models. As the Second Law of Acquisition succinctly states: "once you have their money, you never give it back."
I think an ad-supported tier would reduce churn more than bundling. But these are both probably the future of streaming.
Ads reduce the quality of the experience so much but if people aren't willing to pay then it would keep them viewing. The 30 second ads in iOS games are tedious, especially when they repeat the same ones.
Another option could be a credit system that works across streaming providers. People would subscribe to get tokens per month.
Say someone has a $10/month plan, they get 1000 tokens. They'd be able to open Netflix without a Netflix account and watch what they have and it would charge some tokens. If you watch an episode of a new TV show, it may take 50 tokens per episode. An old TV series can take 10 tokens per episode.
When the tokens run out, people can top them up or jump to a higher subscription tier and tokens can be shared with family members without having to add new viewers to accounts.
They can be used on Youtube to get ad-free playback, Disney+ when a new movie or show is released etc.
This may be a downside for some platforms in that if you don't watch, you don't pay anything but this is the case with an ad service too. People can also watch ads to accumulate tokens. I'd guess an ad view would be worth around $0.02 so it would need a fair amount of ads to build up tokens and a lot of people would rather pay.
For young people with no income, they can be on family plans or gifted tokens.
What you are suggesting makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. Unfortunately, the whole notion of buying “only what you need” runs counter to how pretty much all consumer and business products and services are sold.
People pay huge sums for 3-ton vehicles that can carry 7 passengers and exceed 150 mph. But 95% of actual vehicle usage is with one person, the driver, in the vehicle driving 60 mph and where the maximum legal speed on the best maintained roads is around 70 mph.
Grocery stores put in 12 checkout lanes, but other than a couple of weeks a year, no more than 3 of them are typically staffed.
People routinely buy high end computers with far more memory, storage, and processing performance than they’ll need for 95% of their computer usage.
I pay for Netflix and 95% of the content is material I’ll probably never watch.
There are certainly fringe cases, but so much of consumerism is about selling people far more than they’ll ever need. Whether it’s streaming media or 6500 sqft McMansions with 7 bathrooms for a family of 4, people want (whether they actually need) access and ownership of as much stuff as they can acquire because it represents promise and opportunity to choose from a vast array of things and stuff that may enrich their lives in some small way.
As a consumer, once you start doing the math or tracking your actual consumption you may realize that you’re probably not making the most economically beneficial choices. Or, like most consumers, you quit trying to do the math entirely and sign up for another service while you’re pining away for the day your preordered new Cybertruck will be available for pickup.
Also well said. For the record, I have *never* seen a grocery store with more than 10% of the checker lanes open. I refuse to use self checkout (call me when I get a 10% discount on my order, and I'll rethink it) but also know there are many people conditioned to use them.
Still think Apple getting into streaming TV was a mistake and this may be pointing to a future "I told you so" moment.
If Apple wants to get serious they could buy the company that owns Paramount and get a huge library of Viacom, CBS and Paramount content. The CBS television network which includes a news division and a sports division. A laundry list of channels. The Pluto ad supported streaming service.
The collection of satellite/cable channels cover children, music, sports, comedy and much more. By ownership of CBS they get a significant package of College & NFL Football, College Basketball to include March Madness and other sports properties.
Paramount is controlled by a private company called National Amusements that could likely be bought for pocket change. The public shares are currently less than $10 Billion, so it would be an easy pickup if Apple wants to go there.
Paramount would do much better without the meddlesome Redstone family.
I can’t believe there are still people who want quantity over quality. I, for one, have been happy with Apple TV+ content and do not want a massive library of sub-par content to sift through to find something good.
Still think Apple getting into streaming TV was a mistake and this may be pointing to a future "I told you so" moment.
If Apple wants to get serious they could buy the company that owns Paramount and get a huge library of Viacom, CBS and Paramount content. The CBS television network which includes a news division and a sports division. A laundry list of channels. The Pluto ad supported streaming service.
The collection of satellite/cable channels cover children, music, sports, comedy and much more. By ownership of CBS they get a significant package of College & NFL Football, College Basketball to include March Madness and other sports properties.
Paramount is controlled by a private company called National Amusements that could likely be bought for pocket change. The public shares are currently less than $10 Billion, so it would be an easy pickup if Apple wants to go there.
Paramount would do much better without the meddlesome Redstone family.
I can’t believe there are still people who want quantity over quality. I, for one, have been happy with Apple TV+ content and do not want a massive library of sub-par content to sift through to find something good.
Apple has the pot of gold so they will keep getting associated with extremely stupid mergers beyond the $3 billion dollars they spent for Beats, which is the highest amount they have ever paid for another company.
No way I’m paying anything for Apple’s service. I like how even John Oliver mocked it in his latest episode. I don’t mind Paramount+, but it lacks some truly big drawcards.
No way I’m paying anything for Apple’s service. I like how even John Oliver mocked it in his latest episode. I don’t mind Paramount+, but it lacks some truly big drawcards.
Apple TV has sucked for a long time.
There have been a couple recent shows which have made me buy in for now.
But paramount is pretty much just a waste of money and they end up canceling the few shows that people enjoy.
Apple could probably get a sweet deal on paramount and add their ip to Apple TV plus. Apple doesn’t want to be associated with the paramount name. Just rebrand everything.
Disney is the one apple should really be eyeing though. Their streaming business just took a massive dump. They could use the help.
There are so many players in this space — there has to be consolidation at some point. Amazon seems to be doubling down on content and have the best variety of programs. Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see Apple and Amazon competing with each other on anything substantial.
I think an ad-supported tier would reduce churn more than bundling. But these are both probably the future of streaming.
Ads reduce the quality of the experience so much but if people aren't willing to pay then it would keep them viewing. The 30 second ads in iOS games are tedious, especially when they repeat the same ones.
Another option could be a credit system that works across streaming providers. People would subscribe to get tokens per month.
Say someone has a $10/month plan, they get 1000 tokens. They'd be able to open Netflix without a Netflix account and watch what they have and it would charge some tokens. If you watch an episode of a new TV show, it may take 50 tokens per episode. An old TV series can take 10 tokens per episode.
When the tokens run out, people can top them up or jump to a higher subscription tier and tokens can be shared with family members without having to add new viewers to accounts.
They can be used on Youtube to get ad-free playback, Disney+ when a new movie or show is released etc.
This may be a downside for some platforms in that if you don't watch, you don't pay anything but this is the case with an ad service too. People can also watch ads to accumulate tokens. I'd guess an ad view would be worth around $0.02 so it would need a fair amount of ads to build up tokens and a lot of people would rather pay.
For young people with no income, they can be on family plans or gifted tokens.
What you are suggesting makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. Unfortunately, the whole notion of buying “only what you need” runs counter to how pretty much all consumer and business products and services are sold.
People pay huge sums for 3-ton vehicles that can carry 7 passengers and exceed 150 mph. But 95% of actual vehicle usage is with one person, the driver, in the vehicle driving 60 mph and where the maximum legal speed on the best maintained roads is around 70 mph.
Grocery stores put in 12 checkout lanes, but other than a couple of weeks a year, no more than 3 of them are typically staffed.
People routinely buy high end computers with far more memory, storage, and processing performance than they’ll need for 95% of their computer usage.
I pay for Netflix and 95% of the content is material I’ll probably never watch.
There are certainly fringe cases, but so much of consumerism is about selling people far more than they’ll ever need. Whether it’s streaming media or 6500 sqft McMansions with 7 bathrooms for a family of 4, people want (whether they actually need) access and ownership of as much stuff as they can acquire because it represents promise and opportunity to choose from a vast array of things and stuff that may enrich their lives in some small way.
As a consumer, once you start doing the math or tracking your actual consumption you may realize that you’re probably not making the most economically beneficial choices. Or, like most consumers, you quit trying to do the math entirely and sign up for another service while you’re pining away for the day your preordered new Cybertruck will be available for pickup.
Also well said. For the record, I have *never* seen a grocery store with more than 10% of the checker lanes open. I refuse to use self checkout (call me when I get a 10% discount on my order, and I'll rethink it) but also know there are many people conditioned to use them.
Not conditioned. Prefer to use them. I would rather self checkout and bag a week's worth of groceries than wait or use a cashier who does not know how I want anything bagged.
I’m an Apple TV+ subscriber and I don’t think the problem is not having old content, but the lack of new shows for the current year
No Severance season 2, Shantaram was cancelled after its initial season. No movies interesting watching (apart from Tetris). I hope that the root cause of this was the scriptwriter strike, and things will improve in 2024 as there are several interesting announcements for January and Feb.
Well of course it was the writer and actor strikes. New content production is down across the board, it’s going to take a little while for it to ramp back up. We just need to be patient.
Still think Apple getting into streaming TV was a mistake and this may be pointing to a future "I told you so" moment.
A mistake in what way? You're forgetting that Apple doesn't need to make money on its programming is the same way as a pure streaming company. Judging by the shows they've greenlit, Apple wants its programming to reflect the very high quality of its products, thus providing a halo effect. Seems to me that having already won an Oscar for Best Picture and an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy -- a combo which no other streaming service, including Netflix, has managed -- their plan is doing quite well! And keep in mind that they didn't have to pay billions to buy an existing streaming service or large production company to do this. Apple TV+ is also a compelling additional reason to subscribe to one of the Apple One bundles. That their subscriber losses in October were 1.3% above industry norms doesn't exactly scream that the house is burning down. They're smart to see a bundling opportunity now because bundling is the future of streaming. No one can afford all these services, especially as they try to increase prices.
Comments
My guess is business schools now teach MBA candidates the virtues of the subscription models. As the Second Law of Acquisition succinctly states: "once you have their money, you never give it back."
Not conditioned. Prefer to use them. I would rather self checkout and bag a week's worth of groceries than wait or use a cashier who does not know how I want anything bagged.