Ad companies say Apple is taking a 'slow roll' in promoting Apple TV+

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,450member
    Soli said:
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    I thought it already is. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 37
    leighrleighr Posts: 238member
    Consider the vast majority of potential customers are already Apple customers, Apple has pretty good advertising reach, without having to spend anything. A direct marketing campaign to their existing install base is a lot cheaper than paid online or other paid traditional advertising avenues. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 37
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,839member
    Awe, big nasty Apple isn’t spending as much money with their advertising agencies as they would like? How sad. 
    They will have to cut back on their cocaine allowance.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,034member
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    It is.
    Cool. I just looked it up because you said it was confirmed.

    • Customers with AirPlay 2-enabled Samsung, LG and VIZIO smart TVs must update to iOS 12.3 or later or macOS Catalina to play Apple TV+ originals from the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch or Mac directly to their smart TVs. Customers with eligible Sony smart TVs will be able to enjoy AirPlay 2 support later this year.
    bb-15philboogie
  • Reply 25 of 37
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,315member
    Almost all TV-MA content? I know some ppl just LOVE that stuff, but for me it’s pointless, trashy, and not Apple like, so like they say on Shark Tank “and for that reason I’m out.”
    There are PBS documentaries rated TV-MA.. I am not sure trashy is the right word to describe all TV-MA content .  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vietnam_War_(TV_series)


    williamlondon
  • Reply 26 of 37
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    Ummm since when has Apple spent tons of money marketing?

    Contrary to dumb a** people's beliefs, Apple users are not "sheep. It's quite the opposite when Samsung spends 14 BILLION on ads mocking Apple while Apple doesn't even spend a quarter of that on marketing every product they sell.
  • Reply 27 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,556member
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    It is.
    Cool. I just looked it up because you said it was confirmed.

    • Customers with AirPlay 2-enabled Samsung, LG and VIZIO smart TVs must update to iOS 12.3 or later or macOS Catalina to play Apple TV+ originals from the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch or Mac directly to their smart TVs. Customers with eligible Sony smart TVs will be able to enjoy AirPlay 2 support later this year.
    Apple paid Roku to place ads on the home screen of my Roku TV yesterday. This is how I knew it was available outside of the Apple TV, and none of the macOS requirements or even using Apple hardware.
    https://support.roku.com/article/360036652634

    Logged into it yesterday morning directly on my TCL, even doing the subscription there. I already have an Apple ID but if I didn't you can set one up via Roku as well according to them. Airplay to it would require Apple hardware but I don't know why anyone would need to. 

    FWIW my son still has my Apple TV so he can subscribe on it if he wants to, at least I would assume he can.  He's like the rest of his friends, not much interest in TV beyond a little sports stuff and a couple of reality programs if he's truly bored. I can't remember the last time he sat down with us to watch an entire program. 
    edited November 2019 CloudTalkinbb-15muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 37
    CarmboCarmbo Posts: 26unconfirmed, member
    Right now Apple doesn’t have enough content to promote the service aggressively. Millions will have access as a perk for buying an Apple product they would have bought anyway. The price of the service is modest and millions will get it free at launch, myself included. This gives Apple time for a slow rollout that should lead to a robust package of titles by this time next year. Who knows, maybe there might even be a title or two that has achieved must-see status, though none of the launch titles are headed that way. By the way, the technical quality of the files, at least via an Apple TV, is excellent on a quality, HDR set. 

    If Apple doesn’t rush out and gather up third-party filler content to charge more, this effort will be a big success. Keep subscription cost below other streaming options and focus more on quality than quantity. These days there is a lot of available content. Personally I’m not looking at Disney’s new service because between Netflix, Amazon Prime and now AppleTV+ I have run out of hours in the day to fit any more content in. In addition to what I’m already subscribing to, there’s sports to follow and I like to collect movies, so AppleTV+ is about as much as I can handle in terms of adding even more available content, beyond that. Really, the only reason Apple’s offering has a real chance in surviving in what is becoming a crowded market, is that it likely will be low-cost enough to be seen as a worthwhile compliment. Among the rest of them, as more providers pile on, I suspect there will be winners and losers, as consumers figure out which services to sign up for. Few households will go for all of them, would be my guess. 
    bb-15
  • Reply 29 of 37
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,032member
    Is it just me, or is the A+ offering so little? It hardly seems worth the $4.99. Am I missing something? and that interface doesn’t feel so user friendly. Maybe there’s a learning curve. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 37
    I didn't even know there was an AppleTv+ until now! where have I been?
  • Reply 31 of 37
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    mac_dog said:
    Is it just me, or is the A+ offering so little? It hardly seems worth the $4.99. Am I missing something? and that interface doesn’t feel so user friendly. Maybe there’s a learning curve. 
    They are just starting, I mean they just debuted a few days ago.

    Their content library will only grow and grow over time. Apple will be adding new content monthly. We'll see what it looks like in a year or two. Apple is investing big bucks into this, there will be a lot of content eventually.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    I didn't even know there was an AppleTv+ until now! where have I been?
    I have no idea where you've been, but apparently you haven't been on any Apple related site for at least the past year, because Apple TV+ has been mentioned at least a gazillion times.
  • Reply 33 of 37
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    mac_dog said:
    Is it just me, or is the A+ offering so little? It hardly seems worth the $4.99. Am I missing something? and that interface doesn’t feel so user friendly. Maybe there’s a learning curve. 
    This is how it will work for most TV+ subscribers. 
    You buy an Apple device. And you get one year of TV+ for free. 

    “Now when you buy a new iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV, or Mac, it includes one year of Apple TV+ for free.1

    https://offers.appletvapp.apple/

    * As for the user interface, an Apple TV is very easy to use. 

  • Reply 34 of 37
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,291member
    Services will be the largest segment in Apple's profit pie pretty soon. Let’s imagine at very least 1 million active users  (there are actually close to 1.5 billion active iOS users out there so this is very conservative number) who subscribed Music TV, Arcade,  News or all/any combinations - spending $10-$20 in average per month per account (again, a very conservative assumption). Which means Apple generates at minimum a constant revenue of $10-20 million for a million users per month. Times that to 1000, and you will get 10-20 billion potential  revenue per month just from services. That is crazy.
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 35 of 37
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,034member
    kevin kee said:
    Services will be the largest segment in Apple's profit pie pretty soon. Let’s imagine at very least 1 million active users  (there are actually close to 1.5 billion active iOS users out there so this is very conservative number) who subscribed Music TV, Arcade,  News or all/any combinations - spending $10-$20 in average per month per account (again, a very conservative assumption). Which means Apple generates at minimum a constant revenue of $10-20 million for a million users per month. Times that to 1000, and you will get 10-20 billion potential  revenue per month just from services. That is crazy.
    At least for the first ≤2 years* it will much higher because of the free one year of TV+ access with a new device purchase. Even if looking at only iPhone users (assuming that other Apple device purchasers are very likely also iPhone users, even though they might not get a new iPhone the same year as a Mac, iPad, or Watch, I think it'll be much higher.

    I say ≥2 years because even if Apple canned it after the first year with the current lot of devices (which I doubt), it will still be a year of free access, hence up to 2 years.
  • Reply 36 of 37
    Almost all TV-MA content? I know some ppl just LOVE that stuff, but for me it’s pointless, trashy, and not Apple like, so like they say on Shark Tank “and for that reason I’m out.”
    Don't worry — when you grow up, your parents start letting you watch MA content one day and you can join the rest of society in enjoying normal, everyday TV shows.
    williamlondonpnaddaff
  • Reply 37 of 37
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    Soli said:
    zoetmb said:
    Of course they spent twice as much on the iPhone as on AppleTV+. The iPhone took in $142 billion this past fiscal.   At $60 per year, it would take 2.3 billion TV+ subscriptions to equal that revenue.   That's basically the number of households on the planet.   AppleTV+  revenue will NEVER equal iPhone revenue.   One could argue that they've already spent too much promoting AppleTV+ based on the potential revenue stream.  
    If you remove all the free year subscriptions of TV+ for having bought a new Apple device that number drops, and since those are the most likely candidates for trying out a new streaming service from Apple they primary revenue falls off right at the front. However, since these are also people who are most likely to try the service there's no need to advertise to these people except to add a badge to let them know it's available.

    Nielsen says there's about 120 million TV homes in the U.S.   If Apple got 20% of them, which would be huge, that's 24 million homes = $1.4 billion once everyone starts paying the full $60 per year.  AppleTV+ is not there to make a lot of money.   It's to keep people in the Apple eco-system.   IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's only $5 a month which might get over the usual objection of "I don't want another subscription bill every month". 
    Maybe, but I have a feeling this will be available on non-Apple devices like other streaming services.
    It is.
    Cool. I just looked it up because you said it was confirmed.

    • Customers with AirPlay 2-enabled Samsung, LG and VIZIO smart TVs must update to iOS 12.3 or later or macOS Catalina to play Apple TV+ originals from the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, iPod touch or Mac directly to their smart TVs. Customers with eligible Sony smart TVs will be able to enjoy AirPlay 2 support later this year.
    It's not just over AirPlay, other TVs and devices have the actual ATV+ app:

    https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-app/devices/
    bb-15
Sign In or Register to comment.