Apple Looking to License More Movies to Expand Apple TV+ Library

[MacRumors]

Apple is in active talks to license more films from major Hollywood studios as it seeks to bolster Apple TV+, according to Bloomberg.

Apple has traditionally focused on original productions for its streaming platform, but it is increasingly looking to expand its offerings by acquiring programming from the extensive libraries of established studios, sources familiar with the matter claim. While Apple TV+ has seen some success with original series such as "Ted Lasso" and "The Morning Show," these hits have been relatively few and far between, and the service has struggled to match the extensive catalogs of competitors like Netflix and Disney+.

Apple TV+ launched in November 2019, positioning itself as a premium service with a slate of high-quality, original content. Despite receiving critical acclaim and numerous awards, including 72 Emmy nominations this year, Apple TV+ has not garnered the same subscriber base as its competitors. According to the research firm MoffettNathanson, only 11% of U.S. households use Apple TV+, compared to 55% for Netflix. The limited scope of content available on Apple TV+ is apparently seen as a significant factor contributing to its slower growth. Data from Antenna indicates that streaming services with larger content libraries, like Netflix, experience lower cancellation rates.

In an effort to address this, Apple has already begun experimenting with licensing. Earlier this year, the company licensed approximately 50 movies from Hollywood studios for its service in the United States, adding popular titles such as "Mean Girls" and "Titanic" to its catalog. The positive reception to this initial batch of licensed films is said to have encouraged Apple to pursue additional deals. These discussions aim to license even more titles, potentially expanding the service's offerings internationally as well as domestically. Simultaneously, major studios such as Warner Bros., Discovery, and Disney are increasingly open to selling their content to rivals to boost revenue.

Article Link: Apple Looking to License More Movies to Expand Apple TV+ Library

 

[iJulio]

Makes sense. They've had a decent rotating catalogue of films recently and the streaming quality is top notch. Also, the breadth of titles they've been rotating on the service are fairly decent picks of the most popular Hollywood movies within the last decade or two.

 

[Total Respray]

It would be good if they would licence any further content worldwide and not just the US. Especially given we all pay - more or less - the same price.

 

[brofkand]

Streaming is a bottomless pit of money for most companies involved in it. Netflix is pretty much the only company that's actually profitable, possibly excepting the FAST operators like Tubi.

 

[NapZzz]

If strange things can be watched in  TV+, that will definitely be f**king incredible.

 

[Mr Todhunter]

Slow Horses series. Better of all the others combined.

 

[Gliedgenius]

It would be good if they would licence any further content worldwide and not just the US. Especially given we all pay - more or less - the same price.

This!
I‘m sick and tired of Apple not bringing over News, Apple Cash or Card just to name a few, but oh well…
However for the service that we are paying the exact same monthly cost, that really is a shame to exclude the EU. Don’t even have synchronized Apple Immersive videos and have to rely on subtitles like they didn’t have half a year on their hands for 4 videos…

 

[anthogag]

Licensing older movies and shows that are already on other streaming services just to increase the catalog is boring.

Great shows bring customers to a platform. Apple should spend its money on trying to make or get original hit entertainment.

If they're going to licence movies get the new movies that come to streaming after playing in theatres.

 

[Rychiar]

yet they pulled all the movies this month and didn't give us anything more. I was enjoying watching old favorites on Vision Pro

 

[PsykX]

Go.

Apple TV+ still has a rather small library and new seasons take 2-3 years to arrive even when the show's an epic success (Silo, Severance...). There's really few movies on the platform as opposed to (all?) other platforms.

 

[jz0309]

Now, if they were going to add TCM… that would be great

 

[Tofy79]

So this encouraged me to wonder when the new Apple TV device will be released, now mid of 2024, and no indication that it will be released soon!

 

[MNGR]

It would be good if they would licence any further content worldwide and not just the US. Especially given we all pay - more or less - the same price.

The content owners may be unwilling to license world wide

 

[madeirabhoy]

i love apple tv+ but its going in the wrong direction and can see me sadly binning it.

what i liked about it was two things, a) it was very cheap and b) there wasnt much on it but what there was was excellent tv.

it complimented netflix, netflix was the fast food joint with always something to eat, apple was the fine dining restaurant you only went a few times a month but it was great.

now..... price literally doubled, and yay, america gets lots of films that EU doesnt. but i dont even want them, i want apple to stop spending money on them and keep apple tv+ cost down.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Just before and throughout the time that AppleTV+ has existed, multiple major studios with huge libraries have been put up for sale... often with Apple rumored to be among the bidders. Apple never "wins" such auctions if they actually are among those seriously interested.

Putting a little bit of the massive vaults of cash (or the massive Apple debt) to acquire the entire 20th Century Fox library or the entire Warner Library, or MGM, etc would have loaded AppleTV+ with abundant classic content. Apple didn't want to pay for it.

The behemoth Paramount Pictures was available in the last few months, the owner of "a mountain" of desirable content, a big library, franchise favorites, etc. How much did it cost the buyer who did buy it? A little under 3X the Beats acquisition price. Did Apple put some of that cash hoard towards buying that big bundle of content and franchises? No. Were they even rumored to be among the bidders? No. Same story every time.

Same with games. We keep running through this circular cycle of Apple being serious "now" about gaming... but when it comes to laying out the cash to buy various gaming studios to then own AAA game exclusives, Apple is often rumored among the bidders... but never actually buys. Instead, they seem to run a "build it and they will come" approach, where they roll out some interesting hardware but then expect developers to choose the "no money" approach over the "easy money" approach to developing games.

Both are easy uses for the great wells of cash or credit at Apples disposal. Instead they just sit on that cash and/or pile up more debt. Do I expect that to change? No. Apple seems to value third party content about like many of us seem to value it: they/we want the sun & the moon for nothing... but Apple to (somehow) get huge profit anyway.

Before a defender(s) fires back with something like "I'd rather Apple focus on Mac/iDevices/Software than putting money into content library acquisitions," nothing at all stops them from doing BOTH. Instead, they are doing what is apparently short-term group rentals of select content, sort of like a poor-man's Disney Vault approach... with far fewer movies & shows in rotation. You'd think it was 1997 Apple with no spare cash if you didn't know so much better.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

It would be good if they would licence any further content worldwide and not just the US. Especially given we all pay - more or less - the same price.

Licensing is up to the copyright holder, not the service. I agree that having a larger catalogue of shows available for more people is better, but where that content is available isn't up to Apple.

 

[stukdog]

Warner Brothers has a market value of $21B....just saying.

 

[Oblivious.Robot]

Should’ve just bought Paramount with spare change, and put us holding PARA out of misery.

 

[sw1tcher]

Licensing older movies and shows that are already on other streaming services just to increase the catalog is boring.

Great shows bring customers to a platform. Apple should spend its money on trying to make or get original hit entertainment.

If they're going to licence movies get the new movies that come to streaming after playing in theatres.

New content and older content (bonus if older content is exclusive to the streaming service) both help bring in the subscribers, but it's the latter that keeps the subscribers around after the new content is binged as the streaming services can only produce/release so much new content each year.

- Netflix and Amazon are spending billions on originals, but people prefer the old stuff

Only 20% of the time spent watching subscription-video-on-demand (SVOD) services—including Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu—is spent on originals, viewer-measurement firm Nielsen revealed. The other 80% is spent watching the back catalog of content acquired from other TV and movie studios, like series re-runs and movies that have left theaters.


- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/business/media/most-popular-streaming-tv.html

It’s well established that “Suits,” the USA Network’s legal procedural that aired from 2011 to 2019, was an unexpected streaming hit last year. Netflix subscribers began devouring it over the summer. They shattered records in the process.

“Suits,” with 57.7 billion minutes of viewing time in 2023, eclipsed both “The Office” in 2020 and “Stranger Things” in 2022 (when its fourth season was released) as the most-streamed show on television sets in a single year, according to Nielsen. (The research firm began releasing yearly figures in 2020.)

“Suits” was probably new to most viewers who watched it on Netflix, said Brian Fuhrer, a senior vice president of product at Nielsen.

“For all intents and purposes, ‘Suits’ was an original on Netflix because that viewing cohort, you know, certainly didn’t watch it on USA,” he said. “When it flows on this really broad footprint across Netflix, it might as well be an original.”

The show’s influence could last for years. Ted Sarandos, co-chief executive of Netflix, recently speculated that because of the show’s popularity, networks and studios would begin ordering “a bunch of lawyer shows.”

[ . . . ]


It is no secret that older network shows are popular on streaming. Year after year, shows like “NCIS” and “Grey’s Anatomy” populate Nielsen’s most-streamed lists. (And they all benefit from having hundreds of episodes, driving up the total watching time.)

But the share of older shows went up even more last year. “Friends,” for instance, had 14 billion minutes’ worth of streaming time in 2022. But last year, the show, which streams on Max, was streamed for 25 billion minutes. (The series exploded in popularity after the unexpected death of one of its stars, Matthew Perry, in October.)

Original shows were less popular. Last year, the 10 most-watched original shows accounted for 134 billion minutes of viewing time, a 32 percent decline from the top 10 originals in 2022.

Studios are again freely renting out TV shows to Netflix, after years of holding back content for their own streaming services, and that was a factor, too, Mr. Fuhrer said. Warner Bros. licensed “Young Sheldon” to Netflix in November, and the show quickly started putting up huge numbers.

And more is coming: The HBO classic “Sex and the City” will come to Netflix in April.

[ . . . ]

The most-streamed movie in 2023 was the 2016 film “Moana” from Disney. The movie took the top slot for the first time, outdoing the 2022 best performer, “Encanto,” another Disney film, which was No. 2 last year.

“The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” a 2023 film streaming on Netflix and Peacock, took the No. 3 slot. “Elemental,” on Disney+, was No. 4.


Maybe Apple finally figured this out and they want to license older content to bulk up their library and reduce their churn rate which is among the highest of the major/well-known paid streaming service providers.

Which Streamer Inspires the Most Devotion? A New Study Says It’s Not Netflix

Netflix is not the streamer with the most loyal subscribers: Amazon Prime video has a lower annual churn rate.

www.indiewire.com

Amazon Prime Video boasts the lowest rate of customer cancellations in the streaming industry, according to a new study by Parks Associates. Prime Video’s current annual churn rate is 8 percent, which means eight out of 100 Prime Video members cancel their service within a 12-month period.

By comparison, it sounds like “90-Day Fiancé” is not creating many 365-day subscribers: The Discovery+ annual churn rate is a whopping 43 percent.

There’s a pretty big gap between the churn rates of league-leaders Prime Video and Netflix and the other major streaming platforms. From April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024, Hulu’s churn rate was 15 percent, Max’s (fka HBO Max) was 17 percent, as was Peacock’s; the Disney+ churn rate was 21 percent and Paramount+ was 24 percent.

Apple TV+ barely beat out Discovery+ with a churn rate of 40 percent.

 

[Apple$]

I'll tell you one reason, no Apple TV app for Android phones/tablets.

 

[nylon]

The curated rotation of movies they had on Apple TV+ in May & June were appreciated. Don't know why they stopped. The Apple TV+ catalogue is not deep enough for people to justify constant subscription. However, I believe that more people might be willing to sustain a sub if there was a rotating catalogue of films from other studios available as well.

 

[jz0309]

Just before and throughout the time that AppleTV+ has existed, multiple major studios with huge libraries have been put up for sale... often with Apple rumored to be among the bidders. Apple never "wins" such auctions if they actually are among those seriously interested.

Putting a little bit of the massive vaults of cash (or the massive Apple debt) to acquire the entire 20th Century Fox library or the entire Warner Library etc would have loaded AppleTV+ with abundant classic content. Apple didn't want to pay for it.

The behemoth Paramount Pictures was available in the last few months, the owner of "a mountain" of desirable content, a big library, franchise favorites, etc. How much did it cost the buyer who did buy it? A little under 3X the Beats acquisition price. Did Apple put some of that cash hoard towards buying that big bundle of content and franchises? No. Were they even rumored to be among the bidders? No. Same story every time.

Same with games. We keep running through this circular cycle of Apple being serious "now" about gaming... but when it comes to laying out the cash to buy various gaming studios to then own AAA game exclusives, Apple is often rumored among the bidders... but never actually buys. Instead, they seem to run a "build it and they will come" approach, where they roll out some interesting hardware but then expect developers to choose the "no money" approach over the "easy money" approach to developing games.

Both are easy uses for the great wells of cash or credit at Apples disposal. Instead they just sit on that cash and/or pile up more debt. Do I expect that to change? No. Apple seems to value third party content about like many of us seem to value it: they/we want the sun & the moon for nothing... but Apple to get huge profit anyway.

Before a defender(s) fires back with something like "I'd rather Apple focus on Mac/iDevices/Software than putting money into content library acquisitions," nothing at all stops them from doing BOTH. Instead, they are doing what is apparently short-term group rentals of select content, sort of like a poor-man's Disney Vault approach... with far fewer movies & shows in rotation. You'd think it was 1997 Apple with no spare cash if you didn't know so much better.

Some good points, I was actually surprised learning about the Paramount sales price…
It “feels” that Apple still hasn’t figured out the entertainment space, the content I mean, Apple sure is mastering the devices…
IMHO, a lost opportunity, but then again, seems like all the streamers are struggling…

 

[jaehaerys48]

It would be good if they would licence any further content worldwide and not just the US. Especially given we all pay - more or less - the same price.

This. I like Apple, but sometimes the company feels very American. TV+ is the best example of this. Netflix has had a lot of success licensing international shows. Compared to them TV+ just feels like single American TV channel - a relatively good one, but still limited nonetheless.

 

[LV426]

People watch too much TV. Me, included.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Some good points, I was actually surprised learning about the Paramount sales price…
It “feels” that Apple still hasn’t figured out the entertainment space, the content I mean, Apple sure is mastering the devices…
IMHO, a lost opportunity, but then again, seems like all the streamers are struggling…

It's the same thing over and over with Apple... movie studios, game companies, sports packages (why did NFL-ST end up with YouTube, why did NFL-Thursday Night end up with Amazon, NBA packages just closed, etc).

Apple has all the money in the world... and keeps raking in 'mo-mo-more' every "another record quarter" but then spends it like misers. They have what must be an enormous line of credit (go check their total debt now) but won't use it for things like AppleTV+ (beyond their own creations)... or a money-based approach to AAA game acquisition... or buying the major sports packages, etc.

When such deals close, the defenders among us then blame the sellers... that <whatever it is> was not worth the price... that "I" don't want/play <whatever it is> (so you shouldn't be interested either), etc. But ultimately, it all comes right back to sellers operating like Apple-the seller... seeking as much as they can get for their "product." Unlike many of us, Apple doesn't just roll over and pay any price to buy "it" and instead opts NOT to buy.