Data shows 62% of Apple TV+ subscribers are on a trial, most don't plan to renew

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 73
    1348513485 Posts: 239member
    mike54 said:
    If its low in the US, it's even lower in other countries as the content is US centric.
    And BBC is Eurocentric, doesn’t stop people from watching.
  • Reply 42 of 73
    sreesree Posts: 145member
    This was my comment on Apple TV+ launch back in 2019:
    My concern with AppleTV+ is not really the quality of the shows, given enough money there will be a few good ones and a few bad ones. 

    My question is - 'what does apple bring to the table?'. 

    Apple has always been meticulous in choosing to enter spaces where they can bring something to the table. whether it is wearables, phones, music players, iTunes etc. I don't see anything that apple can do in streaming shows that others can't or don't have the ability to do. I am not convinced this is a great investment.

    I see no reason to change my opinion yet.

    GeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 43 of 73
    Nah there's nothing on apple TV that is going to keep me wanting to subscribe after my free trial ends. content is too sterile 
  • Reply 44 of 73
    digitoldigitol Posts: 269member
    Dear Apple. What NOT to do. Offer a paid monthly service, and then embed further payment required content w/in that ecosphere! content is horrible AND extremely LIMITED. All in all Apple + is a big minus. Pitiful! 
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 45 of 73
    I don’t plan on renewing Apple TV+ because most stuff I want to see on there they charge extra to watch. With Netflix everything is included. With Apple, not everything is included. Why pay a subscription and then pay per view on top of that? I wish they had a setting where it only showed you what is included in the subscription and not all the other iTunes stuff mixed in. 
    Their original content is good, but I’ve watched it all and now run out of things to watch. I’ll keep the trial until July but for me it’s not worth paying for when there’s plenty on Netflix. 
  • Reply 46 of 73
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,360member
    I don’t plan on renewing Apple TV+ because most stuff I want to see on there they charge extra to watch. With Netflix everything is included. With Apple, not everything is included. Why pay a subscription and then pay per view on top of that? I wish they had a setting where it only showed you what is included in the subscription and not all the other iTunes stuff mixed in. 
    Their original content is good, but I’ve watched it all and now run out of things to watch. I’ll keep the trial until July but for me it’s not worth paying for when there’s plenty on Netflix. 
    What stuff is additional pay per view?
  • Reply 47 of 73
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,030member
    Yikes. 

    I truly hope someone serious at Apple is reading these comments. 
    So people actually want all the useless dung that’s on Prime and Netflix? Gobs of knock-off movies starring unknown, bad actors? As for original content I don’t see much quality in what Prime and Netflix have to offer. 

    And why would Apple pay attention to what a bunch of tech blog know-nothings have to bloviate about.
  • Reply 48 of 73
    I have yet to come across anything on Apple TV+ that cost extra. Apple TV was never designed to compete with Netflix or Disney+. We get our Apple TV+ with the Apple bundle. Where is the survey that covers people who have it with the bundle? Greyhound, Amazing Stories, Stillwater, Charle Brown/Snoopy, Ghost Writer is what we have watched. Then again we find the bundle worth it, including Arcade. I think part of the reason for Apple TV+ to exist is to be a part of a bundle. plus to test their computers and software with high end video editing. Apple's end game isn't now, or a year from now, but many years from now.

    We also dumped Netflix because they kept raising prices.
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 49 of 73
    thrangthrang Posts: 935member
    The bottom line is there are WAAAAY too many streaming options; the content market keeps bifurcating, and the potential total costs keep accreting.  People are hitting a wall with all the nickel and dime costs (and Netflix now qualifies as a quarter using that metaphor!). I have Netflix, but don't watch it and only keep for per my wife's insistence (though she barely watches it). Besides that, Prime Video and TV+ as ancillary to the larger services from Amazon and Apple.

    And that's Apple's long term advantage for Apple One -  TV+ is just bundled part of a suite. I'm already a One + member, as I wanted the Fitness + aspect, and it saves money over the separate costs. As more and more adopt One + , TV+ will grow, even if as a barnacle on the larger ship of more essential services (Music, iCloud). And the same for Amazon, as I have Prime Video because I purchase a lot from them and want the free two day shipping.

    Apple will also continue to add new content, so in a few years, it will likely have an impressive offering that may interest more people. It's just not there yet, though what they have is largely quite good.

    But am I subscribing to Peacock to watch the Office? I love the show, but no way. I'm not doing Disney + to watch WandaVision (I purchase my theatrical movies so not interested in streaming their stuff). At one point, it will be the clichéd "enough is enough".
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 50 of 73
    stevehuh said:
    Nah there's nothing on apple TV that is going to keep me wanting to subscribe after my free trial ends. content is too sterile 
    Curious what Apple TV+ shows you have watched? I can think of lots of words to describe See and Ted Lasso, but sterile is not one of them.
  • Reply 51 of 73
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    I don’t plan on renewing Apple TV+ because most stuff I want to see on there they charge extra to watch. With Netflix everything is included. With Apple, not everything is included. Why pay a subscription and then pay per view on top of that? I wish they had a setting where it only showed you what is included in the subscription and not all the other iTunes stuff mixed in. 
    Their original content is good, but I’ve watched it all and now run out of things to watch. I’ll keep the trial until July but for me it’s not worth paying for when there’s plenty on Netflix. 

    You bring up a good point:   Apple Music was successful because they essentially opened the entire iTunes library to those who subscribed.   For TV+ you subscription gets you a tiny selection and you have to pay for all the rest.  And that last is what bothers me most about TV+ -- they bombard you with what amounts to advertisements for stuff you need to buy.  And, even worse, you don't even know if you need to buy it or rent it (and for how much) till you open it up.

    In effect, TV+ is largely just a segway to suck you into iTunes.

    That's not to trash TV+ -- for $5 its worth it.   But it could, at least theoretically, be much better.
  • Reply 52 of 73
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,030member
    digitol said:
    Dear Apple. What NOT to do. Offer a paid monthly service, and then embed further payment required content w/in that ecosphere! content is horrible AND extremely LIMITED. All in all Apple + is a big minus. Pitiful! 
    Nope. This just demonstrates your abject ignorance of the difference between the Apple TV app and the Apple TV+ streaming service. Of course you are not alone in the stupidity of your response in making assumptions about something you are incapable of grasping.
  • Reply 53 of 73
    XedXed Posts: 1,476member
    lkrupp said:
    digitol said:
    Dear Apple. What NOT to do. Offer a paid monthly service, and then embed further payment required content w/in that ecosphere! content is horrible AND extremely LIMITED. All in all Apple + is a big minus. Pitiful! 
    Nope. This just demonstrates your abject ignorance of the difference between the Apple TV app and the Apple TV+ streaming service. Of course you are not alone in the stupidity of your response in making assumptions about something you are incapable of grasping.
    Considering that you said Amazon Prime Video and Netflix only had crap content with crap actors, you really are the least reasonable voice on this forum.
    GeorgeBMacelijahggatorguysirlance99
  • Reply 54 of 73
    Personally, I have no issue paying for it. I find no other site has as high a percentage of appealing shows relative to the size of their library. I'm lucky enough to be able to pay for several subscription streams for the limited number of shows on each that give me pleasure, but if I were forced to choose Apple TV would certainly not be the first to go. I think Lasso and Dickinson are brilliant, love Mythic Quest and Little America,  and greatly enjoy For All Mankind, The Morning Show, and Trying. The documentaries are often stunning or at least quite good. And I haven't even gotten around to trying Tehran, Losing Alice, Defending Jacob, or Servant yet. Worth five bucks? Absolutely.  Could I zip through them all?  Sure, but that's not how I prefer to watch and given the other shows I watch on other streaming sites, Apple's shows carry me across a good amount of time.  That could change, but that holds true for all the streaming sites depending on what individual shows they add and drop.  Some offer a multitude of shows, but none offer me a multitude of captivating shows--it's just a few for each.  A Schitt's Creek, Derry Girls, and Kim's Convenience here,  a Mandalorian and Marvel show there, A Game of Throne and Westworld over there.  No matter the shows though, it seems obvious Apple isn't competing with Netflix or Disney, so any comparison to those is missing the point (not to mention that any comparison to Netflix, which has for the first time I believe started making more than it owes, is also missing a very big aspect)

    That said, it's obviously just my opinion. I always find it somewhat humorous, not to mention befuddling, how people make definitively objective pronouncements about things that are inherently subjective. Entertainment is not objective. There isn't "mediocre" content on TV+; there is content that doesn't appeal to you. That it doesn't does not mean it is objectively mediocre or bad or uninteresting.  Just as just because I consider Lasso brilliant doesn't mean someone is "wrong" or "foolish" if they don't see it the same way. Just like with food, I'd be leery of declaring something "bad" just because you don't like it. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 55 of 73
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,804moderator
    I don’t plan on renewing Apple TV+ because most stuff I want to see on there they charge extra to watch. With Netflix everything is included. With Apple, not everything is included. Why pay a subscription and then pay per view on top of that? I wish they had a setting where it only showed you what is included in the subscription and not all the other iTunes stuff mixed in. 
    Their original content is good, but I’ve watched it all and now run out of things to watch. I’ll keep the trial until July but for me it’s not worth paying for when there’s plenty on Netflix. 
    You bring up a good point:   Apple Music was successful because they essentially opened the entire iTunes library to those who subscribed.   For TV+ you subscription gets you a tiny selection and you have to pay for all the rest.  And that last is what bothers me most about TV+ -- they bombard you with what amounts to advertisements for stuff you need to buy.  And, even worse, you don't even know if you need to buy it or rent it (and for how much) till you open it up.

    In effect, TV+ is largely just a segway to suck you into iTunes.

    That's not to trash TV+ -- for $5 its worth it.   But it could, at least theoretically, be much better.
    It's a good thing to have all the iTunes content in the app, It's probably one of the biggest back catalogs of content around. The problem is the purchasing model, the paywall in front of everything is just as damaging to watching movies and TV as it is for news. It's not as easy to get rid of that paywall with movies as for music. With music, Apple convinced the music industry to lower prices:

    https://www.engadget.com/2005-08-27-apple-and-the-major-labels-headed-for-a-showdown-over-itms.html
    https://www.engadget.com/2006-04-21-apples-itunes-pricing-to-stay-at-99-cents.html

    A similar requirement for the movie industry would be to allow every movie and TV show to be able to be rented, a lot of the iTunes stuff you can only buy the entire series and the rental price should be reasonable relative to the purchase price.

    With streaming music, it's easy to see why the movie industry would be hesitant to go down the same route:

    https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2020/08/17/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream-latest/

    They don't want to be earning $0.005 per rental. With music, people will listen to tracks over and over so the stream count can accumulate to a higher volume. For movies, that would be like pay per minute. Some video sites use this model and it doesn't work very well but it could work if the minutes were priced ok. Each month has about 8 hours per day of viewing x 30 days = 14400 minutes. $50/month would be $0.003/minute. This would mean a 90 minute movie rental would be $0.27 and a 30 minute TV show $0.09 but the movie industry is asking for around 20x this amount.

    Given that content providers are willing to lower the unit price if the overall revenue is high enough, it should just need some creative accounting. People who put old movies up for rent don't want to make $0.27 as they know few people watch them so the platform provider would have to provide a minimum fee guarantee.

    Higher subscription tiers is one way Apple can go. So $5/m gets you Apple Originals, $10/m is that plus some popular TV shows and some old movies, $20/m is even more etc. They could do it with tokens so each tier gets you 1 token per $0.01 so $20 is 2,000 tokens. Apple Originals would use 0 tokens. A new movie might use 1000 tokens but an old one 100 tokens and they'd accumulate if not used each month. This is how mobile game currency works. Due to the high price of the content, people could easily run out in a day and nobody wants to be paying $20/day for content so there has to be some negotiations on the content prices.

    The models used by Netflix don't work either. They pay upfront for a license to content and it's only available for a period of time then it all gets removed from the platform when the time runs out. The iTunes stuff is pretty much there the whole time. I don't know why the movie streaming services don't have higher priced options because people pay much more for traditional TV networks. I'd be happy to pay 5x the base Apple TV subscription if I could stream all the iTunes content. I wouldn't expect 14400 minutes per month either, the minimum would be something like 10 movies and 50 TV shows per month = 2400 minutes. This is $0.01/minute. The key appeal is instant access to everything without a paywall and there would be topup options if the tokens run out. The more people who subscribe, the happier the content providers would be because all they really care about is the amount that goes in the bank so they'd be happy if the stream price was lower as long as the overall volume was high enough.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 56 of 73
    lkrupp said:
    digitol said:
    Dear Apple. What NOT to do. Offer a paid monthly service, and then embed further payment required content w/in that ecosphere! content is horrible AND extremely LIMITED. All in all Apple + is a big minus. Pitiful! 
    Nope. This just demonstrates your abject ignorance of the difference between the Apple TV app and the Apple TV+ streaming service. Of course you are not alone in the stupidity of your response in making assumptions about something you are incapable of grasping.
    LOL. Sounds like Apple failed Branding 101. Instead you blame the consumer. 

    Reminds me of the branding of the ill-fated Google+. (I'll bet you remember that one). 
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 57 of 73
    Apple has an issue with naming, but it is still pretty easy to understand the difference between TV+ the service and the Apple TV app.

    However, I am curious if those who are confused by this difference are equally confused by the difference between what is included with Prime Video and those channels to which one can subscribe through the Prime Video App that show up in every search.
    edited January 2021
  • Reply 58 of 73
    billcap said:
    Just as just because I consider Lasso brilliant doesn't mean someone is "wrong" or "foolish" if they don't see it the same way. Just like with food, I'd be leery of declaring something "bad" just because you don't like it. 
    Agree with most of what you said, except this. If someone does not consider Ted Lasso brilliant they are both “wrong” and “foolish”. :-)
    billcapjcs2305
  • Reply 59 of 73
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    billcap said:
    ..  I'd be leery of declaring something "bad" just because you don't like it. 
    Yeh....
    The Original Startrek series almost never got off the block and was later cancelled because the network gurus didn't like it.   Today, 50 years later, spin-offs are still being promoted.

    I wonder what those gurus would say today?

    billcap
  • Reply 60 of 73
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 641member
    Everyone here who said this is an issue of “quantity” is 100% on the money. People like their services to have big libraries, and Apple TV+ is in its infancy in that regard.  ATV+ shouldn’t really even be in the conversation with other services at this point. 
Sign In or Register to comment.