Apple TV+ is about art more than iPhone sales says Tim Cook
The immense spending on Apple TV+ projects like "F1" is less about selling more iPhones to the public, and more about the art itself, according to CEO Tim Cook.
CEO Tim Cook during the WWDC 2025 'F1' skit - Image Credit: Apple
Apple TV+ is well known as a well-heeled video streaming service, with Apple losing over a billion dollars per year on it. The approach, which enables high-budget shows to be produced for the streaming platform, puts it at a par with others like Netflix, if not with the subscriber count.
The approach could be considered an extreme marketing exercise, trying to increase the sale of connected items like the iPhone and Macs. There's also speculation that a success with "F1""F1" could result in Apple securing the U.S. rights to the sport for the 2026 season.
To CEO Tim Cook in an interview with Variety promoting the "F1" movie, it's about far more than that. To Cook, it's all about the art.
Brand-worthy
In promoting the racing film, Cook insists that it is worthy of Apple's brand.
"We cared about every detail," he says, proposing that the camera makes the viewer feel like they're in the car with the driver.
With "F1" being Apple's biggest release, Cook sees it as a way to test how Apple can be influential to culture via a movie, than through its hardware products.
"To bring something like that to life would be authentic to the sport," Cook adds, telling the story of ups and downs in racing.
At the same time, Cook wanted to bring things that are "uniquely Apple" to the movie, like its camera technology. Furthermore, it's something that he plans for the entire company to support, down to the retail level.
Apple TV+ is for greatness
Discussing the creation of Apple TV+, Cook says that it an Apple Original Films are important because the company stands at the "intersection of technology and the liberal arts." For Apple TV+ itself, Cook wants it to be the place where "great storytellers would tell their best stories."
To do that, Apple decided that creating original content was the best foot forward. While Cook admits that buying a catalog of content would be a fast way to get up and running, he adds that Apple instead should pour its passion into the shows.
Apple's role is that of a "toolmaker," Cook believes, reviving the term that co-founder Steve Jobs used in his own description of the company from the 1980s. "We make tools for creative people to empower them to do things they couldn't do before."
After studying Hollywood for years before deciding to press on with Apple TV+, Cook insists that Apple wants to both tell great stories and to make it a great business too.
Never about the cost
The operation of Apple TV+ is viewed by outsiders as somewhat mystifying, in wondering how the content works to increase hardware sales. Cook believes that, while there are organic connections created as time marches on, it's not about sales.
"I don't have it in my mind that I'm going to sell more iPhones because of it," Cook explains. "I don't think about that at all. I think about it as a business."
Just as it works to leverage Apple's business with iPhones and services, Cook insists Apple is trying to do the same with Apple TV+.
In conclusion, Cook believes Apple is a company with relatively few products for its size. That allows the company to pour itself into each product, and that it will do TV and movies the same way.
To Cook, it's about "staying true" to Apple's push for innovation. If the company can do it while entertaining people at the same time, Cook offers "then we're doing pretty good."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Tim Cook should have had the interview with Joanna.
Others are showing an advanced progress with AI-strategies while Tim Cook promotes some stone-aged "nothing burgers".
Poor Tim.
I'm not sure what he's done that's so bad, but you're never particularly specific either. Apple's stock has always been very undervalued, that's not on Cook. Apple Intelligence isn't chasing fads, so it's getting bad press (and Image Playgrounds is terrible), but that also isn't Cook.
I do sort of chuckle a bit when people try to allocate gains and losses to specific things. Best example is how people claim "the USPS loses money." Government services aren't a business to show profit. Just how much money did the DoD make last year? So too with tim's explanation here. ATV doesn't "lose a billion a year." It is part of a bigger thing.
From the article: "I don't have it in my mind that I'm going to sell more iPhones because of it," Cook explains. "I don't think about that at all. I think about it as a business."
Personally, I thought the song at the end was the best part, but I did like the F1 bit as well.
Basically a lot of movies on made on spec and if there's buzz they can entertain the offers
of multiple parties to distribute. There is nothing magical about Apple TV +. Apple can afford
to "cherry pick" the good films.
To me Apple TV + should be the first leg in a trio.
Apple maintains Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro but there's no real ability to take the output and feed
it into spaces where people are looking for content.
Apple TV is for wealthy creatives. What I want to see is
A YouTube replacement for people that still want quality. So no emphasis on low production quality
shorts and videos, sponsorships are ok with vetting from Apple. The algorithm would show preference
for quality content.
Artist music videos link back to Apple Music and iTunes (if available).
Apple should continue to get more live action content so that it's more of a random destination
versus serial watching. Create a Education series that young people looking to STEM can enjoy
My kid's likely not going to drive an F1 car but he just might be something special in the Tech world.
Frankly I hope the iPhone sales stay flat. All of Apple's successes have been upon the back of the iPhone.
Apple hasn't done much beyond this tight little iOS ecosystem and frankly all of the Tech Oligarchs have
planted flags in key areas and don't willfully compete with each. Hungry companies are motivated
I liked it a whole lot less when I realized it was just a tie-in to a profit-center.
Speaking as someone who has spent a career either giving notes as a network executive or getting notes as the owner of a production company, I will tell you that "F1 looks terrible" is the kind of lazy, meaningless, gibberish note given by someone who has no idea what they're talking about but feels they need to say something critical to justify their job. It's a comment that's not actionable because it could mean a million different things. So... care to step up here and tell us what "looks terrible" specifically means to you? Is the color correction off? Is the picture out of focus? Do you not like the cinematography and, if you don't, how would change it? Etc, etc... let's hear it.
"The idea that it is art in any meaningful sense strikes me as fanciful." Funny thing, critics felt exactly the same way about Blade Runner, Fight Club, Big Lebowski and others, which were all initially panned and are now considered classics. Oh, and Citizen Kane lost money at the box office, didn't even make back its investment.