Netflix CEO says Apple Vision Pro market is too insignificant to bother with

AppleInsider

Apple Vision Pro has been deemed irrelevant to Netflix users according to the company's CEO, but "we'll see where things go."


Netflix

Netflix is among several high profile apps not available as apps on Apple Vision Pro. Others include YouTube and Spotify.

The Netflix CEO Greg Peters was asked about this decision during an interview held by Stratechery, and his reply was expected. Simply, Apple Vision Pro is too small a market and wouldn't yield a return for the effort.

"We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return, and I would say we'll see where things go with Vision Pro," Peters responded. "Certainly we're always in discussions with Apple to try and figure that out but right now, the device is so subscale that it's not really particularly relevant to most of our members."

Apple could change the calculus for Netflix given some incentive, and the Netflix CEO says that route is possible.

"We've worked together for a long time, we've always had active discussions to how we could help each other out," Peters said about incentives. "Sometimes we find a great space of overlap."

It is estimated that about 180,000 Apple Vision Pro pre-orders were made during the first weekend it was available. That pales in comparison to the millions of smartphones, consoles, and TVs on the market.

Apple's market share will grow and customer demand could push Netflix to creating a dedicated app. Until then, the Netflix app works within the Safari browser on Apple Vision Pro.



Read on AppleInsider

BB92647

…Ok Balmer

Xed

You mean, currently nonexistent because it hasn't officially shipped to consumers yet?

cpsro

Netflix was bothered enough to opt out of allowing its iPad app to run on the VP, which is the default. This is how Netflix "innovates".

thrang

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

dewme

Apple and Vision Pro proponents should not get their skivvies in a twist based on this article's headline. There's a little bit of chum in the water with the "insignificant" part - which does not appear anywhere in the quoted text.

What is relevant and is actually in the quoted text is:

"We have to be careful about making sure that we're not investing in places that are not really yielding a return, and I would say we'll see where things go with Vision Pro," Peters responded. "Certainly we're always in discussions with Apple to try and figure that out but right now, the device is so subscale that it's not really particularly relevant to most of our members."

Apple could change the calculus for Netflix given some incentive, and the Netflix CEO says that route is possible.

"We've worked together for a long time, we've always had active discussions to how we could help each other out," Peters said about incentives. "Sometimes we find a great space of overlap."

Good CEOs make sound business decisions based on available data, including the size and growth rate of the target market. While a lot of the early hands-on reviews of the Vision Pro so far describe it as a stunning piece of kit, how it fares in the longer term has a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions, especially around the development of compelling native apps and how many other buyers are going to jump onboard beyond the first wave of early adopters, especially when user face-on feedback starts flowing.

The Netflix CEO is pretty much at the same place that many of us are at with Vision Pro - "we'll see where things go" which means we will wait and see. I'm waiting too. The big difference is we're all waiting because there is about $4K of our hard earned cash on the line and we don't really know for sure how this thing will fit into our lives other than the gee-whiz and oh-wow factor. I guarantee that Netflix's bet on the Vision Pro today would be a tiny bit more than $4K. If Vision Pro takes off I have no doubt that Tim's phone will be ringing and the caller ID will say "Greg Peters."

This response from Netflix is nothing like Steve Balmer's pointed dismissiveness concerning the iPhone and its perceived lack future potential or Michael Dell's suggestion for the disposition of Apple he put out around the time of Steve Jobs' return to the helm.

Appleish

Is Netflix still a thing?

Xed

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Xed

designr said:

Xed said:

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Is that the only reason? Really? Is it possible they did not want to have to incur the support costs that might come from any issues associated with running that app with Vision Pro? Maybe something else?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

That said, maybe you're right. Then we'd need to wonder why Netflix might choose to do that for that reason. What, if anything, has Apple done to earn that kind of response? Is it possible that Apple has pissed in Netflix's cereal in some way? Nah. Apple is always the white-hat-wearing Good Guy™ and everyone who doesn't fall in line is the black-hat-wearing Bad Guy™.

What support costs? They can simply say "We don't support the Apple Vision Pro." Plus, the iPad app is a less of an issue for usage than their website.

Yes, Apple has pissed off Netflix, Spotify, and Alphabet. I feel your good guy v bad guy scenario is very jejune. You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc. 

robin huber

Do you feel smarter using the word "jejune"?  LOL

Probably about as smarter as you feel pointing it out to him then rubbing his nose in again at the end.  LOL

robin huber

Apple has a long memory and a tendency to hold grudges. 

Xed

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Is that the only reason? Really? Is it possible they did not want to have to incur the support costs that might come from any issues associated with running that app with Vision Pro? Maybe something else?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

That said, maybe you're right. Then we'd need to wonder why Netflix might choose to do that for that reason. What, if anything, has Apple done to earn that kind of response? Is it possible that Apple has pissed in Netflix's cereal in some way? Nah. Apple is always the white-hat-wearing Good Guy™ and everyone who doesn't fall in line is the black-hat-wearing Bad Guy™.

What support costs? They can simply say "We don't support the Apple Vision Pro." Plus, the iPad app is a less of an issue for usage than their website.

Yes, Apple has pissed off Netflix, Spotify, and Alphabet. I feel your good guy v bad guy scenario is very jejune. You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc. 

I don't know what support costs. Nor do you.

Do you feel smarter using the word "jejune"? LOL

Look, I've been around the various Apple forums long enough to see a clear pattern that basically falls into the Apple=Good, Others=Bad from the Apple Fanbois. You'd be blind to not see it.

Bottomline is that Netflix may have multiple reasons—not only the the one you've attributed to their decision. To imagine only one reason (to "hurt" Apple) is...well one might say...a bit jejune. LOL

When someone uses a word that is not yet part of my lexicon I tend to look it up. That helps to cultivate a more varied and robust vocabulary. I certainly don't expect anyone else do follow suit, but it is weird to try to mock someone for using a word that is outside your purview.

danox

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Is that the only reason? Really? Is it possible they did not want to have to incur the support costs that might come from any issues associated with running that app with Vision Pro? Maybe something else?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

That said, maybe you're right. Then we'd need to wonder why Netflix might choose to do that for that reason. What, if anything, has Apple done to earn that kind of response? Is it possible that Apple has pissed in Netflix's cereal in some way? Nah. Apple is always the white-hat-wearing Good Guy™ and everyone who doesn't fall in line is the black-hat-wearing Bad Guy™.

What support costs? They can simply say "We don't support the Apple Vision Pro." Plus, the iPad app is a less of an issue for usage than their website.

Yes, Apple has pissed off Netflix, Spotify, and Alphabet. I feel your good guy v bad guy scenario is very jejune. You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc. 

I don't know what support costs. Nor do you.

Do you feel smarter using the word "jejune"? LOL

Look, I've been around the various Apple forums long enough to see a clear pattern that basically falls into the Apple=Good, Others=Bad from the Apple Fanbois. You'd be blind to not see it.

Bottomline is that Netflix may have multiple reasons—not only the the one you've attributed to their decision. To imagine only one reason (to "hurt" Apple) is...well one might say...a bit jejune. LOL

Googles YouTube and Netflix Video services are low hanging fruit to Apple which they can disrupt both at anytime, and AI may leave Google search in the lurch in the near future, If you believe the AI hype.

Xed

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Is that the only reason? Really? Is it possible they did not want to have to incur the support costs that might come from any issues associated with running that app with Vision Pro? Maybe something else?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

That said, maybe you're right. Then we'd need to wonder why Netflix might choose to do that for that reason. What, if anything, has Apple done to earn that kind of response? Is it possible that Apple has pissed in Netflix's cereal in some way? Nah. Apple is always the white-hat-wearing Good Guy™ and everyone who doesn't fall in line is the black-hat-wearing Bad Guy™.

What support costs? They can simply say "We don't support the Apple Vision Pro." Plus, the iPad app is a less of an issue for usage than their website.

Yes, Apple has pissed off Netflix, Spotify, and Alphabet. I feel your good guy v bad guy scenario is very jejune. You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc. 

I don't know what support costs. Nor do you.

Do you feel smarter using the word "jejune"? LOL

Look, I've been around the various Apple forums long enough to see a clear pattern that basically falls into the Apple=Good, Others=Bad from the Apple Fanbois. You'd be blind to not see it.

Bottomline is that Netflix may have multiple reasons—not only the the one you've attributed to their decision. To imagine only one reason (to "hurt" Apple) is...well one might say...a bit jejune. LOL

When someone uses a word that I'm not yet part of my lexicon I tend to look it up. That helps to cultivate a more varied and robust vocabulary. I certainly don't expect anyone else do follow suit, but it is weird to try to mock someone for using a word that is outside your purview.

LOL I used it as appropriately as you did. But whatever go on...LOL

Did I say you didn't? If you want accolades for being able to look up a word and then immediately use it correctly in a sentence then consider yourself commended for your bravery.

Pema

Xed said:

You mean, currently nonexistent because it hasn't officially shipped to consumers yet?

All this doom and gloom over VP because it is normally expected that every product that Apple ships, sells in the millions which is what makes Apple a $3 Trillion company. 

VP is a brand new product from Apple. It will take a little time to build up momentum from the pros down to the prosumers and then consumers. 

And once it becomes a defining product all those folks who are bad-mouthing the product will have to get together at a restaurant and eat their own words for a meal. 

Xed

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

designr said:

Xed said:

thrang said:

He's superficially correct - but he seems to be missing (purposely or not) the relatively meaningless cost to be an early-marquee app for their longer term benefit, and shorter term marketing attention.

Also probably not interested in "helping" a streaming competitor, but why give up eyeballs (literal, marketing, and news cycle) for no reason?

Disney was smarter here.

As Cpsro points out, the default state would be to allow their iPad app to work on AVP. They had to actively disable that feature so you can't simply install the iPad app on AVP. The only reason for this is try to hurt the success of AVP. 

Is that the only reason? Really? Is it possible they did not want to have to incur the support costs that might come from any issues associated with running that app with Vision Pro? Maybe something else?

Not everything is a conspiracy.

That said, maybe you're right. Then we'd need to wonder why Netflix might choose to do that for that reason. What, if anything, has Apple done to earn that kind of response? Is it possible that Apple has pissed in Netflix's cereal in some way? Nah. Apple is always the white-hat-wearing Good Guy™ and everyone who doesn't fall in line is the black-hat-wearing Bad Guy™.

What support costs? They can simply say "We don't support the Apple Vision Pro." Plus, the iPad app is a less of an issue for usage than their website.

Yes, Apple has pissed off Netflix, Spotify, and Alphabet. I feel your good guy v bad guy scenario is very jejune. You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc. 

I don't know what support costs. Nor do you.

Do you feel smarter using the word "jejune"? LOL

Look, I've been around the various Apple forums long enough to see a clear pattern that basically falls into the Apple=Good, Others=Bad from the Apple Fanbois. You'd be blind to not see it.

Bottomline is that Netflix may have multiple reasons—not only the the one you've attributed to their decision. To imagine only one reason (to "hurt" Apple) is...well one might say...a bit jejune. LOL

When someone uses a word that I'm not yet part of my lexicon I tend to look it up. That helps to cultivate a more varied and robust vocabulary. I certainly don't expect anyone else do follow suit, but it is weird to try to mock someone for using a word that is outside your purview.

LOL I used it as appropriately as you did. But whatever go on...LOL

Did I say you didn't? If you want accolades for being able to look up a word and then immediately use it correctly in a sentence then consider yourself commended for your bravery.

Don't need your accolades. Thanks anyway.

No, if I want anything it would be for people to back off the simplistic Apple-Good/Others-Bad dichotomy. Or the variation that assumes the only reason someone isn't going along with Apple is to hurt Apple. I also wouldn't mind—but it's far too much to ask—is some acknowledgement that Apple is sometimes wrong and even kind of dickish. I mean it's just true.

If you had comprehended my previous comment instead of childishly making fun of a word you didn't know you'd have noticed that I very clearly stated "You don't have to be a good guy or bad guy to have someone take umbrage with how you do business, your success, etc."  You can assume that everyone else thinks Apple is this so-called good guy in everything they do, but reality says otherwise.

M68000

Appleish said:

Is Netflix still a thing?

They have about 260 million subscribers, by far the top streaming service in subscriber count. So yeah,  they are still a thing.  

mikethemartian

Appleish said:

Is Netflix still a thing?

It is by far the largest streaming service with about ten times the subscriber base of AppleTV+.

mikethemartian

robin huber said:

Apple has a long memory and a tendency to hold grudges. 

Which is a disservice to its own customer base.

entropys

Apple could change the calculus for Netflix given some incentive, and the Netflix CEO says that route is possible.
"We've worked together for a long time, we've always had active discussions to how we could help each other out

Shorter version: I want apple to pay us lots of monies

Xed

M68000 said:

Appleish said:

Is Netflix still a thing?

They have about 260 million subscribers, by far the top streaming service in subscriber count. So yeah,  they are still a thing.  

Netflix is impressive with how they've grown their subscriber numbers. A 13% YoY to get to that 260 million, but there's a lot to discuss with regards to those numbers. I'm curious how many of those aren't paid account by the customer. I know they have it because that is the only way reason I have Netflix. Clearly I'm in the minority of streaming service users, but Netflix is the one that I never watch. Their content just feels too subpar.

They're also the one major company that lives and dies by having paying customers. Disney+, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Paramount Plus, Peacock, and Apple TV+ are not making the majority of their money as a steaming media company. For them it's simply another outlet to increase their revenue stream. Of course, this does mean that they can all undercut Netflix and could explain why Netflix charges more than the other services.