Everything about Apple TV+ gets scrutinized to the Nth degree. From the beginning Apple has said it wants to be different from other streaming services and build a library from scratch instead of repackaging old content. From the beginning Apple has been criticized for being different.
Reading how little content Apple TV+ has compared to Netflix equals reading how much garbage is on Netflix.
Right now I am enjoying Friday mornings on Apple TV+ watching new episodes of Dickinson and Servant. I am looking forward to the next season of All Mankind.
So Apple TV+ is ranked last again. Does it mean Apple is going broke financially? No. Does it mean Apple needs an acquisition to shovel old content? No. Does it mean Apple should drop Apple TV+? No.
When is the next survey scheduled?
It’s not being scrutinized to the Nth degree - because it’s not being watched!
I have to say the show's I've "watched" were well written, and overall quality shows. Having said that, compare the depth of variety other platforms offer ATV+ might not be worth a steady subscription at least for me. When my trial ends, that will be it for me.
Apple, since the very beginning has argued against cable TV's penchant for flooding the consumer with a huge pile of junk and, instead, argued for choice -- particularly around selected, high quality material.
And, of course, they were correct.
But, at the same time, current TV+ offering are so limited that they, by themselves cannot satisfy the typical consumer. So they serve as a supplement to other subscription services. And, that's ok: at $5 a month I'm willing to take what I get and wait while Apple develops and rolls out more and more shows.
Meanwhile, it ties in well with the physical Apple TV -- where yesterday I went from Apple Music videos to Apple Fitness+ to streaming a Mohamed Ali fight fight on FaceBook to Amazon Prime TV. While I did not not watch any strictly Apple TV+ shows yesterday, that is really only because I'm in the middle of a series from Amazon Prime. I have watched them and will be watching more in the future.
Completely agree with this sentiment... I'm all for quality over quantity. To address the other services IMO:
Netflix is starting to get expensive now, but it still has a few good shows and movies on that we are working our way through, but the newer stuff is clearly quantity over quality. Once we're through what we have on our watch list(s) we will probably cancel it... again.
Amazon Prime wise we only really like 4 or 5 of the shows on it. If it wasn't for the fact we order off Amazon regularly I'm not sure we would pay anything for it so it being bundled means we will keep it until they change the way it's priced.
Disney+ has been brilliant value for us as the back catalogue alone has kept my kid entertained during the lockdowns. It's also been great to sit and watch all the old movies we grew up with again but with our child. The biggest issue we've had with Disney+ is the limited country coverage it has. This really annoyed us when we were able to travel overseas to see family in the summer but were unable to play anything, even the downloaded content!
So far TV+ will probably fall into the Amazon Prime experience once the free trial period comes to an end. Having already got iCloud (2TB), Music (Family), and Arcade it makes it a no brainer to get TV+, Fitness+ and News+ included for the same outlay with an AppleOne subscription.
I hate Apple making, wasting time in low margin content (there is no profit in it), people buy Apple devices for the quality of the software and the device combined as one, Microsoft, and Android need not apply.
However building a content division from the ground up takes time (like building a CPU), there are no short cuts, bailing out existing money losers isn’t the way to go, (notice most of the content loser companies resell every 5 to 10 years to the newest sucker in town). Apple is right to decline the opportunity of losing big money.
I have to say the show's I've "watched" were well written, and overall quality shows. Having said that, compare the depth of variety other platforms offer ATV+ might not be worth a steady subscription at least for me. When my trial ends, that will be it for me.
Even though Netflix has way more content. No way I can justify $17.99 per month for 4K content and multiple streams. That’s madness and not worthy of comparison to Apple TV+ at $4.99 per month.
I don't really see the point to AppleTV+. It doesn't bring people to the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV, because the content isn't good enough and even if it was, you can watch it on various third party TVs and set-top boxes with the AppleTV app anyway. The price is such that Apple isn't making a profit from it, and there is zero chance they'll up the price until it's got a decent amount of content. By which time they will have spent so much on that content that it'll take an inordinate time for a ROI.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
The point? So that some executive can point to their next big thing. Also all the other execs in other companies are doing it. Although I suspect it was Cue and not Cook in this case.
The point? So that some executive can point to their next big thing. Also all the other execs in other companies are doing it. Although I suspect it was Cue and not Cook in this case.
Yeah, and therein lies the problem; an exec doing it for self-interest rather for the benefit of Apple.
I don't really see the point to AppleTV+. It doesn't bring people to the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV, because the content isn't good enough and even if it was, you can watch it on various third party TVs and set-top boxes with the AppleTV app anyway. The price is such that Apple isn't making a profit from it, and there is zero chance they'll up the price until it's got a decent amount of content. By which time they will have spent so much on that content that it'll take an inordinate time for a ROI.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
Hardware improvements will eventually have a limit - cameras, processors, storage, displays will only get so much better to a point where they aren't compelling upgrades. At that point a hardware company will stop growing revenues from them. They have a huge ecosystem of users who use services though so the company can grow services revenue from different areas.
Apple runs a music store, has Apple Music, they are involved in health and fitness, games, news/magazines. Their combined services revenue is Apple's second largest revenue stream with nearly 64% margins:
This will be mostly driven by the App Store but new services usually start out small and they have value beyond direct sales. Apple TV+ could never be a huge service overnight with just original content and it doesn't seem like they want to overtake the other services, they are partners of Apple.
The following interview with Eddy Cue covers a lot of their content strategy starting around 11:50:
He was asked about buying Disney/Netflix and he said those companies are great partners of Apple and they are doing really well. Eddy Cue gets a lot of flak but he was asked about Katzenberg's Quibi at 20:10 and dismissed it as not the kind of experience for good storytelling ( https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/09/quibi-struggling-to-find-buyer-after-rejection-by-apple-svp-eddy-cue )) so they have an idea of the things they don't want to do. Apple's goal is to make a better experience for users and they want to focus on storytelling. Cue mentions Pixar as an example. Pixar has only made about 24 movies:
Apple is in a slightly different position as they aren't making the movies, just funding them but that's all a company is anyway, just a fund of money supporting employees to produce products and services.
Sports is important for them and Cue mentioned areas where AR can come into play to enhance the experience. I think they are laying groundwork for improving watching movie content that will be more noticeable later on. Spatial audio is a recent example.
I think everybody has some idea of how movies can be made better and more immersive, the experience we currently have with movies is not there. It will need some kind of technological advance to get there and movie companies don't have the ability do all of that. Before the iPhone, Apple had lots of separate parts - Macs, OS, iPod, iTunes, apps, they brought them all together into the iPhone. Apple today similarly has a lot of separate technology that in isolation is making a relatively small impact but there are ways to bring them together to make something interesting. In that interview, Cue said he wanted to be at Apple for another 20 years, Schiller said he wanted to be at Apple as long as he could. If there was nothing happening behind the scenes, they wouldn't want to do that.
Although other streaming services are popular, they aren't changing the movie industry for the better, few people would say movies are better today than before due to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu etc. They are just changing the way people watch movies and put the old Blockbuster model to rest but they aren't delivering everything that viewers want. Netflix regularly removes shows that people loved watching. They all have huge libraries of poor quality content and hardly any great content, especially among new content. There is room for more players to improve on this.
If you consider whether Apple would be better off without doing Apple TV+ at all, they'd lose connections with movie production companies, they'd have less PR, fewer things to talk about at their events, less compelling content for Apple TV hardware sales. For their investment in it, I'd say it easily justifies them doing this and it will get better over time. If even one franchise takes off in a big way like the next ER, Office, Friends or even Star Wars/Trek, the service would take off and it doesn't take much production-wise to make those things happen, it's just a confluence of the right things coming together - the right cast and script is really all it takes. I'd like to see Apple TV+ become the Apple Music of the movie industry. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon isn't that and Apple TV+ hasn't tried to be that yet. Apple will be assessing what is working just now and will adapt in future.
From the very first rumours and announcement I've held the same opinion.
It's a good strategic move but comes with limitations if content is limited to Apple platforms. The streaming landscape was already overcrowded and trying to get a piece of a paying pie was going to be a slog.
I don't see a real problem for Apple here. You can't build up a content library at the drop of a hat but good quality content can bring in revenues far into the future.
There are plenty of options open to Apple as far as business model changes go.
All it needs is patience.
Strategically it was a mistake not to buy an established player but we're in a mature streaming market now so there will be convergence through necessity at some point and then, later on, the forced break up of any resulting streaming superpower.
Apple always plays a long game. COVID-19 has basically put us on hold collectively and that means Apple TV+ has had to go through a rather protracted rollout. Yet, as long as Apple keeps the cost where it is, it will find an audience and with a catalogue of content that will rival the original programing offered by other streaming services, Apple TV+ can work as an addition to other services and that works at a low enough price point.
Had Apple TV+ launched let's say two years sooner, COVID-19 might well have been a boon to the service in so much that there is more demand right now for streaming content since so many of us are stuck at home. But you can't plan for everything and COVID is a once-in-a-century scenario.
I think Apple should, and probably will, stick with Plan A. Even if it decides to add a legacy library, offer it as an extra tier, leaving original Apple content at the current price and offering a pricier TV+ version with the additional content. That would be better than the Netflix model which tiers picture quality, as if 4K, Dolby Vision, etc. ought to be considered a luxury addon that should cost more. Other streaming services here in Canada certainly don't charge extra to deliver current standards like 4K, and they most definitely should not. I expect 4K etc. simply as what current broadcast technology provides. My solution, regarding Netflix, is to not carry it year round. I'll subcribe for a few months of the year, get caught up, and then unsubscribe for a few months to check out Amazon Prime's growing catalogue of original content plus Apple's offerings.
While some households, especially with plenty of members, would see value in having a large catalogue of titles on tap as is offered by services like Netflix and Disney+, not everyone is looking for that, exactly. Apple would do well to not try to copy Netflix but rather forge its own path.
Even if it decides to add a legacy library, offer it as an extra tier, leaving original Apple content at the current price and offering a pricier TV+ version with the additional content. That would be better than the Netflix model which tiers picture quality, as if 4K, Dolby Vision, etc. ought to be considered a luxury addon that should cost more. Other streaming services here in Canada certainly don't charge extra to deliver current standards like 4K, and they most definitely should not. I expect 4K etc. simply as what current broadcast technology provides.
That has been Apple's solution with iTunes too, HD content costs more than SD content.
Even if it decides to add a legacy library, offer it as an extra tier, leaving original Apple content at the current price and offering a pricier TV+ version with the additional content. That would be better than the Netflix model which tiers picture quality, as if 4K, Dolby Vision, etc. ought to be considered a luxury addon that should cost more. Other streaming services here in Canada certainly don't charge extra to deliver current standards like 4K, and they most definitely should not. I expect 4K etc. simply as what current broadcast technology provides.
That has been Apple's solution with iTunes too, HD content costs more than SD content.
The difference there is that we're talking purchase vs. having access for as long as you subscribe. As well, to Apple's credit, when a 4k version of a film becomes available - granted limited to streaming - the 4k version is made available to the purchaser of an HD version free of charge. In effect, Apple does not charge a premium for a 4k HDR version of a film vs. the HD version. It does limit the ability to download and retain a version of the film to HD. What Apple offers is a cheaper version at a discount for those who don't care about resolution. I have many titles in my collection purchased from Apple for a lot less than $10 apiece and many of those titles I have access to a 4k version free of charge. In other words, Apple does not believe you should be charged a premium for accessing the latest and greatest file formats. It goes so far as to upgrade to that latest file tech free of charge. It's not just Apple that thinks 4k, HDR, etc. should simply be the standard video is offered in. Disney+ does it, Amazon Prime does it. Netflix is the outlier.
I see TV+ as a much longer game than most commenters here. I do think that if the story about them trying to acquire MGM was true, that they may at some point acquire a library of older content that is considered classic, like a Janus Films or TCM -- something of that stature.
But if the discussion here has proven one thing, it is this: Apple needs to continue to build a quality library, and probably needs to continue offering trials and low-price subscriptions until that happens.
Netflix has some terrific stuff, as does Prime Video, Disney+, and HBO Max. All of those services also have large piles of complete garbage and a "quantity over quality" mentality to justify ever-increasing prices. Amazon absolutely will raise their price for Prime, Netflix continues to do so, Disney+ will do so next month, and HBO's streaming offerings have always been overpriced. Apple can easily -- EASILY -- afford to keep TV+ at $5/month for the rest of our natural lives, and by including it in a bundle it already has more paid subscribers than I would have expected (I thought those on the free trial made up 80+ percent prior to that study coming out showing only 62 percent are on the free trial) and that number will only grow as Apple adds new services to the bundles.
TV+ doesn't need to justify its existence financially for at least another decade, if ever. It adds overall value to the other services, and has the luxury of commissioning only the very best-made original stuff and (I predict) will become a major buyer of the best film-festival entries and other indie filmmakers. And at some point add a quality back catalog, alongside building their own. Over time (a long time, perhaps), it will be a popular but niche service for people with taste, the way Criterion Channel, Acorn TV, and other "minor" services are.
Right now, the public are also into "quantity over quality" but I expect that more "curated" TV services will continue to thrive on a smaller scale and become more popular for their lack of ads and for putting the power of choice back into viewers' hands. Cable TV as we know it has no future, which is why I find it kind of amusing that many of the commenters here who complain about TV+'s lack of quantity are probably still cable subscribers paying $100/month to watch very little of any quality constantly interrupted by commercials, who then come on here to complain about TV+ "not being worth" $5.
I see TV+ as a much longer game than most commenters here. I do think that if the story about them trying to acquire MGM was true, that they may at some point acquire a library of older content that is considered classic, like a Janus Films or TCM -- something of that stature.
But if the discussion here has proven one thing, it is this: Apple needs to continue to build a quality library, and probably needs to continue offering trials and low-price subscriptions until that happens.
Netflix has some terrific stuff, as does Prime Video, Disney+, and HBO Max. All of those services also have large piles of complete garbage and a "quantity over quality" mentality to justify ever-increasing prices. Amazon absolutely will raise their price for Prime, Netflix continues to do so, Disney+ will do so next month, and HBO's streaming offerings have always been overpriced. Apple can easily -- EASILY -- afford to keep TV+ at $5/month for the rest of our natural lives, and by including it in a bundle it already has more paid subscribers than I would have expected (I thought those on the free trial made up 80+ percent prior to that study coming out showing only 62 percent are on the free trial) and that number will only grow as Apple adds new services to the bundles.
TV+ doesn't need to justify its existence financially for at least another decade, if ever. It adds overall value to the other services, and has the luxury of commissioning only the very best-made original stuff and (I predict) will become a major buyer of the best film-festival entries and other indie filmmakers. And at some point add a quality back catalog, alongside building their own. Over time (a long time, perhaps), it will be a popular but niche service for people with taste, the way Criterion Channel, Acorn TV, and other "minor" services are.
Right now, the public are also into "quantity over quality" but I expect that more "curated" TV services will continue to thrive on a smaller scale and become more popular for their lack of ads and for putting the power of choice back into viewers' hands. Cable TV as we know it has no future, which is why I find it kind of amusing that many of the commenters here who complain about TV+'s lack of quantity are probably still cable subscribers paying $100/month to watch very little of any quality constantly interrupted by commercials, who then come on here to complain about TV+ "not being worth" $5.
While agreeing with what you said, I think there was another impetus behind TV+:
Both the media industry and the cable industries have had a long history of closed minds and wanting to retain control - and crushing upstarts. I am sure that both wanted to keep upstarts like Apple from interfering or upsetting their dominance and their control.
I suspect that TV+ was meant by Apple both as a middle finger and a warning to those industries.
I don't really see the point to AppleTV+. It doesn't bring people to the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV, because the content isn't good enough and even if it was, you can watch it on various third party TVs and set-top boxes with the AppleTV app anyway. The price is such that Apple isn't making a profit from it, and there is zero chance they'll up the price until it's got a decent amount of content. By which time they will have spent so much on that content that it'll take an inordinate time for a ROI.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
Hardware improvements will eventually have a limit - cameras, processors, storage, displays will only get so much better to a point where they aren't compelling upgrades. At that point a hardware company will stop growing revenues from them. They have a huge ecosystem of users who use services though so the company can grow services revenue from different areas.
Apple runs a music store, has Apple Music, they are involved in health and fitness, games, news/magazines. Their combined services revenue is Apple's second largest revenue stream with nearly 64% margins:
This will be mostly driven by the App Store but new services usually start out small and they have value beyond direct sales. Apple TV+ could never be a huge service overnight with just original content and it doesn't seem like they want to overtake the other services, they are partners of Apple.
The following interview with Eddy Cue covers a lot of their content strategy starting around 11:50:
Eddie Cueless is wrong, pay close attention to Apple Christmas quarter announcement the software (OS) and hardware division combo brings home the actual profit, and always will, low margin content is a worthless distraction. Apples mind blowing profit is in big ticket OS/HARDWARE.
I don't really see the point to AppleTV+. It doesn't bring people to the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV, because the content isn't good enough and even if it was, you can watch it on various third party TVs and set-top boxes with the AppleTV app anyway. The price is such that Apple isn't making a profit from it, and there is zero chance they'll up the price until it's got a decent amount of content. By which time they will have spent so much on that content that it'll take an inordinate time for a ROI.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
Hardware improvements will eventually have a limit - cameras, processors, storage, displays will only get so much better to a point where they aren't compelling upgrades. At that point a hardware company will stop growing revenues from them. They have a huge ecosystem of users who use services though so the company can grow services revenue from different areas.
Apple runs a music store, has Apple Music, they are involved in health and fitness, games, news/magazines. Their combined services revenue is Apple's second largest revenue stream with nearly 64% margins:
This will be mostly driven by the App Store but new services usually start out small and they have value beyond direct sales. Apple TV+ could never be a huge service overnight with just original content and it doesn't seem like they want to overtake the other services, they are partners of Apple.
The following interview with Eddy Cue covers a lot of their content strategy starting around 11:50:
Eddie Cueless is wrong, pay close attention to Apple Christmas quarter announcement the software (OS) and hardware division combo brings home the actual profit, and always will, low margin content is a worthless distraction. Apples mind blowing profit is in big ticket OS/HARDWARE.
Apple has always valued its product above its profits. So has every successful company -- from Carnegie Steel to Tesla. That's why they make such "mind blowing" profits.
I don't really see the point to AppleTV+. It doesn't bring people to the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV, because the content isn't good enough and even if it was, you can watch it on various third party TVs and set-top boxes with the AppleTV app anyway. The price is such that Apple isn't making a profit from it, and there is zero chance they'll up the price until it's got a decent amount of content. By which time they will have spent so much on that content that it'll take an inordinate time for a ROI.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
Hardware improvements will eventually have a limit - cameras, processors, storage, displays will only get so much better to a point where they aren't compelling upgrades. At that point a hardware company will stop growing revenues from them. They have a huge ecosystem of users who use services though so the company can grow services revenue from different areas.
Apple runs a music store, has Apple Music, they are involved in health and fitness, games, news/magazines. Their combined services revenue is Apple's second largest revenue stream with nearly 64% margins:
This will be mostly driven by the App Store but new services usually start out small and they have value beyond direct sales. Apple TV+ could never be a huge service overnight with just original content and it doesn't seem like they want to overtake the other services, they are partners of Apple.
The following interview with Eddy Cue covers a lot of their content strategy starting around 11:50:
Eddie Cueless is wrong, pay close attention to Apple Christmas quarter announcement the software (OS) and hardware division combo brings home the actual profit, and always will, low margin content is a worthless distraction. Apples mind blowing profit is in big ticket OS/HARDWARE.
Apple has always valued its product above its profits. So has every successful company -- from Carnegie Steel to Tesla. That's why they make such "mind blowing" profits.
I agree. A big problem is when smaller, product focus companies, get bought out by bigger conglomerates that are profit driven. It generally ultimately kills the product, and everything that smaller company focused so hard on.
Problem with Apple TV+ is it seems like the buyers have a checklist of things a show must include; PC and/or boring are on top of that list. Ted Lasso is a rare treat. That series based on the game developer, supposed to be a comedy, is vomit inducing PC “comedy”. And See has been the best cure for sleeplessness in a long time.
It will take a few years... it is a quantity issue imo!
Completely agree. People like to pay for services that include large libraries, and ATV+ isn't there yet. Almost unfair to include it in the conversation at this point. Think about where Apple Maps was five years ago compared to now.
Conversely, quality is also important and Apple is winning that battle at this point. Everyone likes to talk about how much content Netflix has, but nobody ever mentions how much of Netflix's huge library is pure garbage.
There was a rumour that Apple was interfering heavilly with the shows being developed resulting in boring family fare being all that we'd see. That rumour has caused a bias to emerge. Not sure what the standards of others might be but if I had young children in my household, I highly doubt that many of Apple's shows to date would wind up viewed by those children. It is true that there is a shortage of gory, excessive, juvenile fare which is certainly prevalent elsewhere but we aren't all teenage males - deep down inside if not literally - so it's not a bad thing to put out content for the rest of us. I hardly think, though, that programming like The Morning Show, Servant, Defending Jacob, etc. qualify as family fare, per se. That said, clearly, not everything Apple puts out is going to be brilliant. I haven't even bothered to give See a try and yet have logged quite a few hours of accessing Apple's content. Even so, what I personally, or any other specific person for that matter, think of the content is largely beside the point. There will likely be programs I enjoy and others not so much. That would hold for anyone else. It's simply not possible for any streaming service to put out fare that, across the board, appeals to absolutely everyone. We as consumers shouldn't expect that nor should Apple itself. Apple TV+ would be a success, though, as long as the programming is generally well done and enough consumers find enough to like for the service to build an audience. My personal opinion is that production standards have been high and there is worthwhile content being offered, enough that when my free trial expires - whenever that is - I will subscribe. That is, of course, provided Apple keeps the cost close to what it is now.
It should be kept in mind, too, that in addition to revenue from subscribers to the service, Apple has the potential to make money via marketing of its properties through other means. Media is sold, as well as, offered via streaming services so if a consumer doesn't subscribe to Apple TV+ yet acquires a version of an Apple title some other way - disc sales, digital download, etc. - that becomes a revenue stream Apple can tap into. Even if Apple TV+ were to go under, the potential would remain to generate revenue off assorted properties after the fact. It means the risk associated with this effort is rather low for Apple. The effort could ultimately fail and still Apple could wind up not suffering a loss. If Apple TV+ disappeared right now, the content produced for it to date would not vanish right along with it. EIther Apple retained the rights and cashed in over time or another entity would pay to acquire the properties.
Comments
- Netflix is starting to get expensive now, but it still has a few good shows and movies on that we are working our way through, but the newer stuff is clearly quantity over quality. Once we're through what we have on our watch list(s) we will probably cancel it... again.
- Amazon Prime wise we only really like 4 or 5 of the shows on it. If it wasn't for the fact we order off Amazon regularly I'm not sure we would pay anything for it so it being bundled means we will keep it until they change the way it's priced.
- Disney+ has been brilliant value for us as the back catalogue alone has kept my kid entertained during the lockdowns. It's also been great to sit and watch all the old movies we grew up with again but with our child. The biggest issue we've had with Disney+ is the limited country coverage it has. This really annoyed us when we were able to travel overseas to see family in the summer but were unable to play anything, even the downloaded content!
So far TV+ will probably fall into the Amazon Prime experience once the free trial period comes to an end. Having already got iCloud (2TB), Music (Family), and Arcade it makes it a no brainer to get TV+, Fitness+ and News+ included for the same outlay with an AppleOne subscription.However building a content division from the ground up takes time (like building a CPU), there are no short cuts, bailing out existing money losers isn’t the way to go, (notice most of the content loser companies resell every 5 to 10 years to the newest sucker in town). Apple is right to decline the opportunity of losing big money.
Jobs wouldn't enter an industry unless he thought it could be disruptive; there had to be something that Apple could do *much* better to make people say "wow, why did no one think of that before?!" Unfortunately, there is nothing disruptive about AppleTV+. It seems to me then, that the point is actually Cook's attempt at a legacy, albeit a pretty lacklustre one thus far.
Apple runs a music store, has Apple Music, they are involved in health and fitness, games, news/magazines. Their combined services revenue is Apple's second largest revenue stream with nearly 64% margins:
https://www.investopedia.com/apple-s-5-most-profitable-lines-of-business-4684130
This will be mostly driven by the App Store but new services usually start out small and they have value beyond direct sales. Apple TV+ could never be a huge service overnight with just original content and it doesn't seem like they want to overtake the other services, they are partners of Apple.
The following interview with Eddy Cue covers a lot of their content strategy starting around 11:50:
He was asked about buying Disney/Netflix and he said those companies are great partners of Apple and they are doing really well. Eddy Cue gets a lot of flak but he was asked about Katzenberg's Quibi at 20:10 and dismissed it as not the kind of experience for good storytelling ( https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/10/09/quibi-struggling-to-find-buyer-after-rejection-by-apple-svp-eddy-cue )) so they have an idea of the things they don't want to do. Apple's goal is to make a better experience for users and they want to focus on storytelling. Cue mentions Pixar as an example. Pixar has only made about 24 movies:
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/production-company/Pixar
Apple is in a slightly different position as they aren't making the movies, just funding them but that's all a company is anyway, just a fund of money supporting employees to produce products and services.
Sports is important for them and Cue mentioned areas where AR can come into play to enhance the experience. I think they are laying groundwork for improving watching movie content that will be more noticeable later on. Spatial audio is a recent example.
I think everybody has some idea of how movies can be made better and more immersive, the experience we currently have with movies is not there. It will need some kind of technological advance to get there and movie companies don't have the ability do all of that. Before the iPhone, Apple had lots of separate parts - Macs, OS, iPod, iTunes, apps, they brought them all together into the iPhone. Apple today similarly has a lot of separate technology that in isolation is making a relatively small impact but there are ways to bring them together to make something interesting. In that interview, Cue said he wanted to be at Apple for another 20 years, Schiller said he wanted to be at Apple as long as he could. If there was nothing happening behind the scenes, they wouldn't want to do that.
Although other streaming services are popular, they aren't changing the movie industry for the better, few people would say movies are better today than before due to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu etc. They are just changing the way people watch movies and put the old Blockbuster model to rest but they aren't delivering everything that viewers want. Netflix regularly removes shows that people loved watching. They all have huge libraries of poor quality content and hardly any great content, especially among new content. There is room for more players to improve on this.
If you consider whether Apple would be better off without doing Apple TV+ at all, they'd lose connections with movie production companies, they'd have less PR, fewer things to talk about at their events, less compelling content for Apple TV hardware sales. For their investment in it, I'd say it easily justifies them doing this and it will get better over time. If even one franchise takes off in a big way like the next ER, Office, Friends or even Star Wars/Trek, the service would take off and it doesn't take much production-wise to make those things happen, it's just a confluence of the right things coming together - the right cast and script is really all it takes. I'd like to see Apple TV+ become the Apple Music of the movie industry. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon isn't that and Apple TV+ hasn't tried to be that yet. Apple will be assessing what is working just now and will adapt in future.
It's a good strategic move but comes with limitations if content is limited to Apple platforms. The streaming landscape was already overcrowded and trying to get a piece of a paying pie was going to be a slog.
I don't see a real problem for Apple here. You can't build up a content library at the drop of a hat but good quality content can bring in revenues far into the future.
There are plenty of options open to Apple as far as business model changes go.
All it needs is patience.
Strategically it was a mistake not to buy an established player but we're in a mature streaming market now so there will be convergence through necessity at some point and then, later on, the forced break up of any resulting streaming superpower.
Had Apple TV+ launched let's say two years sooner, COVID-19 might well have been a boon to the service in so much that there is more demand right now for streaming content since so many of us are stuck at home. But you can't plan for everything and COVID is a once-in-a-century scenario.
I think Apple should, and probably will, stick with Plan A. Even if it decides to add a legacy library, offer it as an extra tier, leaving original Apple content at the current price and offering a pricier TV+ version with the additional content. That would be better than the Netflix model which tiers picture quality, as if 4K, Dolby Vision, etc. ought to be considered a luxury addon that should cost more. Other streaming services here in Canada certainly don't charge extra to deliver current standards like 4K, and they most definitely should not. I expect 4K etc. simply as what current broadcast technology provides. My solution, regarding Netflix, is to not carry it year round. I'll subcribe for a few months of the year, get caught up, and then unsubscribe for a few months to check out Amazon Prime's growing catalogue of original content plus Apple's offerings.
While some households, especially with plenty of members, would see value in having a large catalogue of titles on tap as is offered by services like Netflix and Disney+, not everyone is looking for that, exactly. Apple would do well to not try to copy Netflix but rather forge its own path.
While agreeing with what you said, I think there was another impetus behind TV+:
Eddie Cueless is wrong, pay close attention to Apple Christmas quarter announcement the software (OS) and hardware division combo brings home the actual profit, and always will, low margin content is a worthless distraction. Apples mind blowing profit is in big ticket OS/HARDWARE.
Problem with Apple TV+ is it seems like the buyers have a checklist of things a show must include; PC and/or boring are on top of that list. Ted Lasso is a rare treat. That series based on the game developer, supposed to be a comedy, is vomit inducing PC “comedy”. And See has been the best cure for sleeplessness in a long time.
Conversely, quality is also important and Apple is winning that battle at this point. Everyone likes to talk about how much content Netflix has, but nobody ever mentions how much of Netflix's huge library is pure garbage.