Also, I think Apples problem is they insist on maintaining a profit for every customer. Apple might be more profitable if they had a ad supported freemium level and then a paid tier.
I agree with this statement, that Apple makes mistakes, but is free to make its own decisions, rather than have all the right decisions imposed on it by someone else. Neither you, nor I, nor politicians can tell Apple how to run its business. Apple may be a "corporation," but they have the same rights and freedoms as an individual.
Hi churn and low number of paid content possibly due to lack of “normal” content.
What is “normal content ”? Simple: it’s content not dripping in left-leaning woke-ism. About the only show that isn’t featuring LGTBQ characters/plot lines or black actors >13% of total is Ted Lasso. Everything else is a democrat advert.
Finding Jacob? The Tom Hanks submarine movie? Trying? See? Mythic Quest? Central Park? Snoopy In Space?
The Morning Show also didn't have any LGTBQ issues or disproportionate black actors as far as I can remember.
That's pretty much all the major shows! It seems like "woke-ism" is a common complaint against Apple TV+ that isn't nearly as backed up by facts as those who complain about it seem to think it is.
Realize that the goal of AppleTV+ isn't to make the most money in the streaming business. The AppleTV+ unit isn't bound by a profit motive, since Apple makes most of its money on hardware. I believe one reason AppleTV+ exists is to make Mac and iPhone purchases more attractive, since you get a free year with a purchase. Fits neatly with the iPhone Upgrade Program.
It also exists to fulfill one of Apple's other goals: to leave the world a better place than we found it. It explains why Apple is focused on creating new things, instead of spending money on things that already exist. Maybe Apple would buy existing content if it was about to disappear, or Apple thought it was important enough to bring to a larger audience. Because Apple doesn't have to make money on it, they can choose which projects to go forward with based on artistic or social value, instead of how much money they can make from certain demographics.
Third, Apple is one of the few companies that can even enter this market. This is probably a strategic move to make sure that they will be prepared when they need to buy something to prevent further consolidation of the movie and TV business.
AppleTV+ has had a small start, but over the course of the next 25 or 1000 years, it will have created so many things which never would have had a chance to exist without it.
I don't see how AppleTV+ can even compare to Netflix or Disney+.
It's definitely not a relevant comparison for the obvious reasons you pointed out. Consumers flocked to Disney because they were already familiar with the IP. And Netflix never tried to compete as a streaming service with 100% original content. Apple is in a different position and is offering a different kind of service as a result.
While Netflix now has a lot of proprietary content, they started out with licensing.
Apple could do the same, and it would also be a niche:
Imagine if you had to subscribe to each record company’s music streaming service to get their music! But that’s exactly where movies and TV shows are now.
Instead of competing on functionality and price, content is locked to service providers, and there you’re stuck.
Apple tries with the TV app to act as some sort of content aggregator, but it’s not sufficiently promoted and integrated, likely because the owners of the content rather gather information on users than just being a content channel provider to Apple’s platform.
Apple may have to bite the bullet and buy a controlling stake in a content provider or license an extensive back catalogue, to jumpstart their platform. A few productions of their own are likely not enough, particularly not to cover the diverse set of interests of viewers.
At some level the Netflix dude is utterly wrong, however: he doesn’t consider what in economics is called “network effects”.
Apple has zero interest in capturing market share. The objective is to further monetize 1.5 billion iOS devices through a portfolio of core services, which include Music, News, Fitness, and AppleTV. Mission accomplished.
AppleTV+ debuted in November 2019. So it’s basically a year old and the majority of that time has been during a pandemic. Which is not exactly the best environment for securing staff and production. Nevermind that the service itself also requires an Apple device or a recent supported 3rd party device.
Meanwhile Netflix has been around since 1997.
I dare say Apple has done *plenty* more since 1997 than Netflix has.
You make some decent points, but the the one about Netflix isn’t one of them. Netflix was not a streamer in 1997. They didn’t even start until 2007, and the effort didn’t fully takeoff until 2013 when they invested in House of Cards.
Apple is doing it on opposite fashion...producing original content first. Apple’s problem will continue to be the lack of a back catalog. Granted, it’s 5 bucks. But Disney+ is $6.99 and soon $7.99. I’m not a subscriber, but they have an absolutely insane amount of content. I have Netflix, prime, YouTube TV, and free HBO max in addition to free AppleTV+ until July. The only show I’ve watched is For All Mankind. I also watched Greyhound. We’ll see if I end up paying for it after July. Either way, I think Apple TV+ is going to be a nascent effort until they get a serious amount of content somewhere.
I get that you may not have seen content on ATV+ ghat appeals to you. Not the same for me...
I’ve watched dang near everything on offer; foreign and domestic. That speaks to the quality component of the service.
apple will get there as the service is in no danger of being pulled.
Let's flashback to when Netflix introduced its streaming service. At that time, they were a company that rented DVDs and Blu-Rays by mail.
Credit them for seeing the writing on the wall when they introduced their "fledgling" streaming service. They had no original content. They licensed programming from content owners relatively inexpensively because they were the only game in town. This quickly gave them a huge catalog of content.
Fast forward several years and Netflix had some competition, Amazon probably was the first to really compete. Content owners began to realize the value of their product to the streaming companies and now there was often a bidding war for content as it became available. Netflix again adroitly saw that their content dollars would be better spent and subscribers retained if they began to develop their own original programming. They did not have their currently extensive on day 1.
Now that content owners have started their own streaming services, Disney+, Peacock, CBS All Access etc., Netflix is being starved of content. Many of the programs that they now can offer won't again be available when the current deals expire.
To presume that Apple could match Netflix's original content catalog after a year is just plain stupid. And there really isn't a content owner that Apple could buy that would give them a deep and broad catalog.
As others have mentioned, COVID has definitely delayed production of programming for everyone which is Apple has been extending the free trials.
Apple has zero interest in capturing market share. The objective is to further monetize 1.5 billion iOS devices through a portfolio of core services, which include Music, News, Fitness, and AppleTV. Mission accomplished.
I'd wager a lot of money that no one is buying an Apple product because of the free year of AppleTV+. AppleTV+ has no particularly popular exclusives for that to be the case, and even if it was, it's available on non-Apple hardware anyway; entirely voiding the "its to push hardware sales" argument.
Hmmm? I remember the last time a competitor tried to diss Apple. Be smart Netflix, remember Blackberry?
There is nothing Apple is doing that would indicate they represent the threat they did to Blackberry. The iPhone was a breakthrough product that rapidly improved, dropped in cost, and was "coming" for the market. Most of knew it would only be a matter of time.
AppleTV+? Different thing. Their product doesn't compare well to Netflix, Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max. The reason is obvious...the lack of content. Their content has been high quality, but it's limited. If Apple really wants to be a major player in the TV market, they will need to massively expand their catalog. They will need to use their cash stockpile to buy it. The problem is there are many viable, valuable competitors who aren't going to sell their content. That means a huge acquisition. The clear candidate is our old friend, Disney. But according to the Motley Fool, that would be incredibly expensive and possibly not worth the risk. But where else is Apple going to get the back catalog? Not from Netflix. Not from NBC/Universal (Peacock). Not from CBS/Viacom (Paramount Plus coming soon). Not from HBO/Warner. The only other candidate would be Sony, with Sony Classics and Columbia titles.
"Not in it with both feet". I assume the other foot is legacy content. Apart from Fraggle Rock (and Peanuts?), Apple has nothing but original/ exclusive programming. They seem to be playing the long game and can afford to give it away for free as long as they want to.
However, the appeal of a known property would create a lot of buzz. Apple probably tried it when (allegedly) bidding for Friends. Personally, I am happy that god-awful show didn't make it to Apple TV+.
They can afford it, but how long it's worth it is another matter. I stand by my previous comments that to really be a major player, they need a back catalog. Not just classics, but what HBO has...current and recent movies. They have to buy that content.
Fairly ignorant thing to say. Apple doesn't have a back catalogue of content and they only show original programming (mostly). Growth is going to be limited until they can build a catalogue of content. Of course, like with everything else, Apple is using their monopoly over their devices to push their own services over competitors... oh wait.
I guess the one bright spot for Apple TV+ is when competitors start talking smack about an Apple offering it means said competitor is about to get steamrolled and is pooping their pants.
How many competitors has Apple "steamrolled" really? 1. Competing MP3 players makers (who apart from Zune ... really didn't exist to begin with) 2. Windows CE, Windows Phone - note that Microsoft itself is doing fine - and Blackberry 3. Android Wear maybe? Though they had been lapped by Fitbit and even Samsung before the Apple Watch launched
I don't get why so many people have this conviction. Apple's empire is built on the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod and Mac. In every single one of those categories - except for true smartwatches and not $50 Chinese bands - Apple has a ton of competitors with several having more market share.
Hmmm? I remember the last time a competitor tried to diss Apple. Be smart Netflix, remember Blackberry?
Ummm ... Samsung has been dissing Apple for years ... and has been the world's #1 smartphone seller, #2 tablet seller and #2 smartwatch seller during all that time. Microsoft, Google, Amazon and others have taken their swipes at Apple and all of them are doing fine (Microsoft and especially Amazon more than fine). Please stop comparing billion dollar global sector leaders to tiny companies with a single niche product like Blackberry and pretending that mighty Apple is going to crush them. The converse is true: Apple desperately wants Netflix to continue putting and regularly updating its apps on iPhones, iPads and especially Apple TV devices. By contrast were Netflix to pull their apps from iOS devices they would still get revenue from billions of Android, Fire OS, Roku OS, lgOS, Tizen, Playstation, XBox etc. devices. Which means that - like Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Google, Disney, Facebook etc. - Netflix can say whatever they want about Apple and Apple will just have to sit and take it.
Apple got hit by bad timing with Apple TV+. They launched it and basically had to suspend production a few months later which slowed their rollout of new content. I feel like they did the right thing by extending the trial period given they were unable to continue to deliver new content and decent clip.
Comparing them to Disney is pretty ridiculous given Disney had it's entire back catalog that covers decades.
Oh yeah, the other part of what you said is ridiculous too.
1. Apple was years late launching Apple TV. Had they launched it when they originally planned, they would have had a head start on all these competitors like Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+ (formerly CBS All Access) etc. Back when Apple TV was first considering launching, as they obviously wasn't going to be one of the big 3 (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu) and was going to be more of a niche player their biggest competition was going to be the absolutely horrible Crackle (which Sony finally gave up on and sold) as well as independent players pushing 10-20 year old B movies that the big players didn't bother to buy streaming rights to (Tubi) and now even that cohort has expanded from just Tubi to Roku, Plex, Google and Amazon (who offer them free with ads on YouTube and on the Amazon/IMDb apps respectively). But now they are launching in a much more competitive landscape with far less content. Also, back then producing streaming content was a lot cheaper because practically no one else was doing it. Look at some of the early offerings: Lilyhammer, Annedroids, Mozart in the Jungle etc. But since the Marvel and Adam Sandler deals with Netflix it has exploded. Producing your own original streaming content is now time-consuming and expensive because everyone is doing it.
2. The reason why Apple was late launching Apple TV: their original vision for it was going to be something to directly take on/replace the cable companies. It was supposed to be some combination of what Netflix originally was for movies and what YouTube TV and Hulu TV ultimately became. And the only way to access it would have been iOS devices, with the next-generation Apple TV device centering around it. However, the cable companies and content owners chose to defend their coachwhip-and-buggy arrangements and blocked Apple. I should point out: this was also the original goal for Google TV, but the same cable company/studio cabal torched that idea. Apple arrogantly thought that they could succeed where Google failed because they were the richer, more influential and more trusted company. But what actually happened: Google ultimately achieve most of what they originally aimed for with the combination of Google Play Movies and TV and YouTube TV. Indeed, they are even back to their original Google TV branding. Though it is centered around their third generation Chromecast, Android TV set top boxes and smart TVs and Android/ChromeOS phones/tablets/laptops as delivery vehicle, they are multiplatform as always. By contrast Apple hasn't gone back to their original "succeed where Google failed but is now succeeding with their second try" strategy and has decided to be the only streaming service to rely completely on original content in history instead. So both Apple's original idea - a "take that Google" - and their pivot to the current strategy of offering a streaming service primarily on their (low market share) hardware with practically no content were bad ones.
3. Someone else has mentioned that Netflix has been around since 1997. True, but Apple has been around since 1977 and has roots in the entertainment industry for much of that time. The PC video game industry was born on Apple computers. There was also Apple's longtime partnerships with the likes of Pixar and Disney. It can even be said that iTunes was the first major streaming service, especially after they branched out from songs to include movies and TV shows. And yes, the Apple TV preceded the Roku (which lest we forget was created by and for Netflix but they spun it off). Apple had a ton of advantages in this space - especially with respect to the likes of Google, Netflix and even Disney as they existed not long ago before they bought Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox - that they didn't take advantage of.
4. Even now, Apple certainly had the money to buy MGM - who is on the verge of entering bankruptcy for a second time - but will not for reasons that makes no sense to them at all. Compare Apple to, say, Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to get their "Netflix for games" effort off the ground. In order to accomplish this: they are buying gaming studios right and left. And it is a buyer's market because thanks to the cost of making AAA games being so expensive - requires 8K graphics, ray tracing etc. - and cheaper independent games being massacred by mobile, lots of good gaming studios are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and can be had cheap. So Microsoft is buying them up solely to put their old titles on xCloud. Which is much smarter than Google's strategy of ... nothing beyond bribing these studios with anywhere from $1 million to $10 million to port their (mostly old) games to Stadia and their already abandoned attempts to develop their own. Not saying that Apple should have paid $70 billion to outbid Disney for Fox, but they could have licensed or outright bought the rights to a ton of content by now. They just aren't willing to spend the money.
Apple got hit by bad timing with Apple TV+. They launched it and basically had to suspend production a few months later which slowed their rollout of new content. I feel like they did the right thing by extending the trial period given they were unable to continue to deliver new content and decent clip.
Comparing them to Disney is pretty ridiculous given Disney had it's entire back catalog that covers decades.
Not saying that Apple should have paid $70 billion to outbid Disney for Fox, but they could have licensed or outright bought the rights to a ton of content by now. They just aren't willing to spend the money.
That's because Cook is only really interested in increasing Apple's share price (apart from using Apple as a political vehicle). He wastes billions on share buybacks for little material gain, which could have been spent on buying up a studio to actually make ATV+ have a respectable catalog.
Hi churn and low number of paid content possibly due to lack of “normal” content.
What is “normal content ”? Simple: it’s content not dripping in left-leaning woke-ism. About the only show that isn’t featuring LGTBQ characters/plot lines or black actors >13% of total is Ted Lasso. Everything else is a democrat advert.
You had to go there. Is there a certain amount of comments you have to post on sites per day complaining about representation? Not your cup of tea to see shows with less white people in them, fine. Don't go and complain about it. Makes you sound kinda bigoted.
Going from this list: https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/ I got to Losing Alice before I got to anything that resembled what you complained about. Continuing past it yields nothing else aside from a Documentary called "Out on Television". So one show has some LGBT (ladies love story) out of all of the scripted shows and one is documentary. That's two shows with LGBT issues. I count 7 shows either starring black people (Documentary or non-fiction) or telling black stories. So a total of 9 which blacks or gays. 5 shows have women either the focus of the documentary or fiction program. We are at 14. That leaves 38 programs that are indeterminate (nature, documentary, or have white males as their leads). Sorry that isn't enough for you.
Comments
The Tom Hanks submarine movie?
Trying?
See?
Mythic Quest?
Central Park?
Snoopy In Space?
The Morning Show also didn't have any LGTBQ issues or disproportionate black actors as far as I can remember.
That's pretty much all the major shows! It seems like "woke-ism" is a common complaint against Apple TV+ that isn't nearly as backed up by facts as those who complain about it seem to think it is.
It also exists to fulfill one of Apple's other goals: to leave the world a better place than we found it. It explains why Apple is focused on creating new things, instead of spending money on things that already exist. Maybe Apple would buy existing content if it was about to disappear, or Apple thought it was important enough to bring to a larger audience. Because Apple doesn't have to make money on it, they can choose which projects to go forward with based on artistic or social value, instead of how much money they can make from certain demographics.
Third, Apple is one of the few companies that can even enter this market. This is probably a strategic move to make sure that they will be prepared when they need to buy something to prevent further consolidation of the movie and TV business.
AppleTV+ has had a small start, but over the course of the next 25 or 1000 years, it will have created so many things which never would have had a chance to exist without it.
Apple could do the same, and it would also be a niche:
Imagine if you had to subscribe to each record company’s music streaming service to get their music! But that’s exactly where movies and TV shows are now.
Instead of competing on functionality and price, content is locked to service providers, and there you’re stuck.
Apple tries with the TV app to act as some sort of content aggregator, but it’s not sufficiently promoted and integrated, likely because the owners of the content rather gather information on users than just being a content channel provider to Apple’s platform.
Apple may have to bite the bullet and buy a controlling stake in a content provider or license an extensive back catalogue, to jumpstart their platform. A few productions of their own are likely not enough, particularly not to cover the diverse set of interests of viewers.
At some level the Netflix dude is utterly wrong, however: he doesn’t consider what in economics is called “network effects”.
I’ve watched dang near everything on offer; foreign and domestic. That speaks to the quality component of the service.
apple will get there as the service is in no danger of being pulled.
AppleTV+? Different thing. Their product doesn't compare well to Netflix, Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max. The reason is obvious...the lack of content. Their content has been high quality, but it's limited. If Apple really wants to be a major player in the TV market, they will need to massively expand their catalog. They will need to use their cash stockpile to buy it. The problem is there are many viable, valuable competitors who aren't going to sell their content. That means a huge acquisition. The clear candidate is our old friend, Disney. But according to the Motley Fool, that would be incredibly expensive and possibly not worth the risk. But where else is Apple going to get the back catalog? Not from Netflix. Not from NBC/Universal (Peacock). Not from CBS/Viacom (Paramount Plus coming soon). Not from HBO/Warner. The only other candidate would be Sony, with Sony Classics and Columbia titles.
They can afford it, but how long it's worth it is another matter. I stand by my previous comments that to really be a major player, they need a back catalog. Not just classics, but what HBO has...current and recent movies. They have to buy that content.
1. Competing MP3 players makers (who apart from Zune ... really didn't exist to begin with)
2. Windows CE, Windows Phone - note that Microsoft itself is doing fine - and Blackberry
3. Android Wear maybe? Though they had been lapped by Fitbit and even Samsung before the Apple Watch launched
I don't get why so many people have this conviction. Apple's empire is built on the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod and Mac. In every single one of those categories - except for true smartwatches and not $50 Chinese bands - Apple has a ton of competitors with several having more market share.
1. Apple was years late launching Apple TV. Had they launched it when they originally planned, they would have had a head start on all these competitors like Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, Paramount+ (formerly CBS All Access) etc. Back when Apple TV was first considering launching, as they obviously wasn't going to be one of the big 3 (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu) and was going to be more of a niche player their biggest competition was going to be the absolutely horrible Crackle (which Sony finally gave up on and sold) as well as independent players pushing 10-20 year old B movies that the big players didn't bother to buy streaming rights to (Tubi) and now even that cohort has expanded from just Tubi to Roku, Plex, Google and Amazon (who offer them free with ads on YouTube and on the Amazon/IMDb apps respectively). But now they are launching in a much more competitive landscape with far less content. Also, back then producing streaming content was a lot cheaper because practically no one else was doing it. Look at some of the early offerings: Lilyhammer, Annedroids, Mozart in the Jungle etc. But since the Marvel and Adam Sandler deals with Netflix it has exploded. Producing your own original streaming content is now time-consuming and expensive because everyone is doing it.
2. The reason why Apple was late launching Apple TV: their original vision for it was going to be something to directly take on/replace the cable companies. It was supposed to be some combination of what Netflix originally was for movies and what YouTube TV and Hulu TV ultimately became. And the only way to access it would have been iOS devices, with the next-generation Apple TV device centering around it. However, the cable companies and content owners chose to defend their coachwhip-and-buggy arrangements and blocked Apple. I should point out: this was also the original goal for Google TV, but the same cable company/studio cabal torched that idea. Apple arrogantly thought that they could succeed where Google failed because they were the richer, more influential and more trusted company. But what actually happened: Google ultimately achieve most of what they originally aimed for with the combination of Google Play Movies and TV and YouTube TV. Indeed, they are even back to their original Google TV branding. Though it is centered around their third generation Chromecast, Android TV set top boxes and smart TVs and Android/ChromeOS phones/tablets/laptops as delivery vehicle, they are multiplatform as always. By contrast Apple hasn't gone back to their original "succeed where Google failed but is now succeeding with their second try" strategy and has decided to be the only streaming service to rely completely on original content in history instead. So both Apple's original idea - a "take that Google" - and their pivot to the current strategy of offering a streaming service primarily on their (low market share) hardware with practically no content were bad ones.
3. Someone else has mentioned that Netflix has been around since 1997. True, but Apple has been around since 1977 and has roots in the entertainment industry for much of that time. The PC video game industry was born on Apple computers. There was also Apple's longtime partnerships with the likes of Pixar and Disney. It can even be said that iTunes was the first major streaming service, especially after they branched out from songs to include movies and TV shows. And yes, the Apple TV preceded the Roku (which lest we forget was created by and for Netflix but they spun it off). Apple had a ton of advantages in this space - especially with respect to the likes of Google, Netflix and even Disney as they existed not long ago before they bought Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox - that they didn't take advantage of.
4. Even now, Apple certainly had the money to buy MGM - who is on the verge of entering bankruptcy for a second time - but will not for reasons that makes no sense to them at all. Compare Apple to, say, Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to get their "Netflix for games" effort off the ground. In order to accomplish this: they are buying gaming studios right and left. And it is a buyer's market because thanks to the cost of making AAA games being so expensive - requires 8K graphics, ray tracing etc. - and cheaper independent games being massacred by mobile, lots of good gaming studios are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and can be had cheap. So Microsoft is buying them up solely to put their old titles on xCloud. Which is much smarter than Google's strategy of ... nothing beyond bribing these studios with anywhere from $1 million to $10 million to port their (mostly old) games to Stadia and their already abandoned attempts to develop their own. Not saying that Apple should have paid $70 billion to outbid Disney for Fox, but they could have licensed or outright bought the rights to a ton of content by now. They just aren't willing to spend the money.
Going from this list: https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/ I got to Losing Alice before I got to anything that resembled what you complained about. Continuing past it yields nothing else aside from a Documentary called "Out on Television". So one show has some LGBT (ladies love story) out of all of the scripted shows and one is documentary. That's two shows with LGBT issues. I count 7 shows either starring black people (Documentary or non-fiction) or telling black stories. So a total of 9 which blacks or gays. 5 shows have women either the focus of the documentary or fiction program. We are at 14. That leaves 38 programs that are indeterminate (nature, documentary, or have white males as their leads). Sorry that isn't enough for you.