Apple TV+ Curbs Costs After Expensive Projects Fail to Capture Viewers

[zenotds]

Let's be honest, when the ATV+ shows are good they are extremely good, eg Severance, Ted Lasso, Slow Horses..
But the bad ones, oh my effin god... I've endured some of the worst written and worst directed fuming piles of garbage ever seen on a screen. How something like "Invasion" got greenlit 2 seasons is still baffling to me.

 

[delsoul]

I liked some of the documentaries in the early days of Apple TV, like The Long Way Up…but that was about it. The majority of the rest of the shows and movies were just way too predictable and you could tell
They were created just to reach a ‘quota’. I cut off my subscription a long time ago and just started watching foreign movies that aren’t plagued with trying to check the boxes off on a paper.

 

[JamesMay82]

I’m not surprised as I don’t find they have many exciting shows. They have good dramas but they need more than that to sustain it.

If a new start up released all these shows they would of been bankrupt years ago.

They need to license 3rd party content like Netflix to keep people interested

 

[NOATAK]

It's their own fault with their constant price hikes. Their selection is considerably smaller than Netflix or Disney+ and yet they charge just as much/more than the competition.

AppleTV+ for 9.99 is hardly worthwhile for most people. You might as well get Netflix with a much larger selection of titles. Apple has some great shows, I myself really like The Morning Show, but I'm perfectly happy to subscribe for a month as soon as the new season drops and then cancel again - I do that with all streaming services now. There's no need to remain a long-term subscriber anywhere.

 

[Abazigal]

Yeah, I would like to know exactly how much Apple TV+ is bringing in. Probably a number Apple doesn’t want to divulge.

The amount may also be hard to quantify. Like how much of an Apple One subscription do you allocate to TV+, and what about improved hardware sales spurred by on Apple Services? An Apple One subscription shared by an entire family goes a long way towards keeping them all on iPhones, Apple Watches, iPads and HomePods, for example.

And the more people stick with iPhones, the more they spend on apps or transact with Apple Pay.

So it is possible that TV+ is a loss leader in itself, while still being of value to the overall Apple ecosystem. It’s all interconnected.

We may never know.

 

[GrayFlannel]

I wish they would stop all this and just focus on technology.

I think the reason is that Apple’s technology products have gone stale and their quality has become marginal so the competition has caught up.

 

[GrayFlannel]

Inside the Apple ecosystem, most people only have an iPhone and they aren’t paying for a streaming service for that.

Include iPad with the iPhone and you almost describe me. I’m nearing retirement age so I suppose I’m a difficult demographic to target. The iPad is my main (non-work) device. When away from home the iPhone is merely for calls, texts, and email.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I don't know anybody who watches anything on this. Might aswell be the Ted Lasso channel. Sorry.

 

[webkit]

I don’t know. So I guess my answer is Probably an amount. I wouldn’t want to speculate especially when Apple One+ covers a range. How does one separate music from Fitness from TV from News+? We are all just guessing because we have no data whatsoever other than an overall number for all of the services.

I think the main point is, Apple provide a suite of services and and they use one to bolster the other.

Estimates I've read put the number of Apple TV+ subscriptions at around 25 to 40 million. Even if all of those are paid subscribers (i.e., doesn't include free trial subs) at $9.99/month each, that would mean revenue of only around $250 to $400 million which is a small portion of the $85 billion "Services" revenue you quoted. Considering how many total customers Apple has, it doesn't appear TV+ is doing very well especially given how much they are spending on content. Hence the need to curb costs, at least for now.

 

[webkit]

Yeah, I would like to know exactly how much Apple TV+ is bringing in. Probably a number Apple doesn’t want to divulge.

Estimates I’ve read put the number of Apple TV+ subscriptions at around 25 to 40 million. Even if all of those are paid subscribers (i.e., doesn't include free trial subs) at $9.99/month each, that's only around $250 to $400 million in revenue. Pretty low considering how much they've been spending on content. Hence the need to curb costs, at least for now.

 

[webkit]

The amount may also be hard to quantify. Like how much of an Apple One subscription do you allocate to TV+, and what about improved hardware sales spurred by on Apple Services? An Apple One subscription shared by an entire family goes a long way towards keeping them all on iPhones, Apple Watches, iPads and HomePods, for example.

And the more people stick with iPhones, the more they spend on apps or transact with Apple Pay.

So it is possible that TV+ is a loss leader in itself, while still being of value to the overall Apple ecosystem. It’s all interconnected.

We may never know.

You don’t need an Apple device to get Apple TV+. If estimates of only around 25 to 40 million TV+ subscriptions are accurate, it doesn’t appear it is doing very well especially considering how much they've been spending on content. Hence the need to curb costs, at least for now, as TV+ currently attracts an extremely small percentage of Apple customers.

 

[steve09090]

Estimates I've read put the number of Apple TV+ subscriptions at around 25 to 40 million. Even if all of those are paid subscribers (i.e., doesn't include free trial subs) at $9.99/month each, that would mean revenue of only around $250 to $400 million which is a small portion of the $85 billion "Services" revenue you quoted. Considering how many total customers Apple has, it doesn't appear TV+ is doing very well especially given how much they are spending on content. Hence the need to curb costs, at least for now.

Whereas there are apparently up to 1 Billion Apple with Apple announcing in 2022 that they had 840M subscribers to their services and adding 150M last year. I have no idea what they exactly means, but it does suggest they are doing okay in that space. Again, we need to include Apple One+ in those figures and definitely not assume that they are doing that for Music.

I would guess that someone wanting Apple TV and Music would consider Apple One+

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple TV+ should be about $30/year

 

[webkit]

Whereas there are apparently up to 1 Billion Apple with Apple announcing in 2022 that they had 840M subscribers to their services and adding 150M last year. I have no idea what they exactly means, but it does suggest they are doing okay in that space. Again, we need to include Apple One+ in those figures and definitely not assume that they are doing that for Music.

I would guess that someone wanting Apple TV and Music would consider Apple One+

The point is that Apple doesn't appear to be doing well in the streaming space. Apple subscriptions include Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, Apple Fitness+, and iCloud. iCloud accounts for a significant portion of Apple's subscription total and that's not a streaming service. Take away iCloud and Apple's subscriptions numbers are pretty low especially given how many total customers Apple has. Again, numbers I've seen for TV+ are only in the 25 to 40 million range. Hence the need for TV+ to curb costs.

 

[spartan1967]

Actually not minding $10/month after my 90 day trial just ended. Watched TMS & loved it. Then actually cancelled, only to commit for another month because of Presumed Innocent, which is also awesome.

Currently into the 2nd season of Ted Lasso, which is very refreshing. I do agree Apple does need more content either prior or new shows.

 

[michaelscarn]

If they really wanted viewers, they would offer the service for free to Apple customers. Many Apple products came with a 12 month subscription when Apple TV+ was just starting. I'm not paying however much extra per month to watch something that may or may not be worth my time.

And based on my last experience with Apple TV+, I'm not missing much at all.

 

[nathansz]

If they really wanted viewers, they would offer the service for free to Apple customers

The goal isn’t viewers, the goal is revenue.

Giving it away for free doesn’t create revenue

 

[webkit]

It's their own fault with their constant price hikes. Their selection is considerably smaller than Netflix or Disney+ and yet they charge just as much/more than the competition.

Their selection is considerably smaller but they don't charge "just as much/more than the competition" if you are comparing like (ad-free) plans. Apple TV+ at $9.99/month is around 29% to 41% cheaper than the other major streaming services including Max ($16.99/month), Netflix ($15.49/month) and Disney+ ($13.99/month).

Rumors have been that a lower priced ad-supported TV+ plan is in the works.

 

[webkit]

If they really wanted viewers, they would offer the service for free to Apple customers.

They want viewers but they want/need revenue and profit even more.

Viewership is important if it can be tied to revenue/profit sources such as subscription price and/or advertising and/or requiring the purchase of a product.

 

[bbeagle]

I may be in the minority here, but I can’t stand the language in these shows. The use of the f-word has gotten out of control. So many time the writers just force it in and in the most unnatural times. Put less TV-M and I’d watch a lot more!

I agree. Some shows like Ted Lasso (namely Roy Kent) and the Bear are out of control with it.

It takes a lot away from a show. It becomes too distracting. Use the word occasionally, but not every other word.

 

[Cervisia]

What were they expecting with originals only? And they were late to join the crowd. Right at a time when content fragmentation, price rises started to bring back piracy. Apple has good shows, but I'm the only one in my friend group who watches them on Apple TV.

 

[NOATAK]

Their selection is considerably smaller but they don't charge "just as much/more than the competition" if you are comparing like (ad-free) plans. Apple TV+ at $9.99/month is around 29% to 41% cheaper than the other major streaming services including Max ($16.99/month), Netflix ($15.49/month) and Disney+ ($13.99/month).

Rumors have been that a lower priced ad-supported TV+ plan is in the works.

In Germany, the prices look a little different. I compared the cheapest available ad-free option in each case which is mostly the standard tier. Netflix costs 13.99€ (12.99 until recently), Apple TV+ is 9.99€ and Disney+ is 8.99€. As you can see, Apple is more expensive than Disney+, but has a much smaller selection. Netflix is 4€ more but comes with a MUCH BIGGER selection of movies and shows. If I'm not mistaken, Apple has also included licensed films in its streaming service in the US, which is also not the case here, as you can only find Apple's own productions.

IMHO, Apple TV+ was not worth the 6.99€ before and it's certainly not worth the 9.99€ now. And to hell with ad-supported plans, I'll never subscribe to something like that.

 

[Abazigal]

It's their own fault with their constant price hikes. Their selection is considerably smaller than Netflix or Disney+ and yet they charge just as much/more than the competition.

AppleTV+ for 9.99 is hardly worthwhile for most people. You might as well get Netflix with a much larger selection of titles. Apple has some great shows, I myself really like The Morning Show, but I'm perfectly happy to subscribe for a month as soon as the new season drops and then cancel again - I do that with all streaming services now. There's no need to remain a long-term subscriber anywhere.

Back when I was still subscribed to all 3, there were definitely times when I watched more TV+ content compared to Netflix and Disney+. I remember a period where there were like 6 shows that I liked, which meant 6 episodes to watch every weekend, and I already had challenges keeping up with that watch queue.

Compared to Disney+, where their immense back catalogue didn't really appeal to me, and Netflix was more unpredictable (sometimes they have good stuff, but I felt like I was spending more time searching for something to watch than actually watching stuff). So I am not necessarily interested in having "more" for the sake of having more, which I guess is similar to the reason why I prefer Apple products. Even though they seem to offer "less" on paper despite being more expensive, but I end up getting "more" of what I want compared to the competing alternatives, and that's what matters ultimately.

 

[thebart]

Keep the spending, just cross-publish the shows to disney+, Netflix and Hulu.

Be a multi-platform studio

Also using the same name essentially for a device and for a service is derptastic.

iCloud would be iPhone+ if the AppleTV/AppleTV+ thing worked I guess

Wait till they make a TV set and call it... AppleTV. Like George Foreman who named all his sons George.

Seriously, a problem for streamers is there's no syndication money. Syndication is traditionally pure profit for studios with hit shows. The Friends producers are all billionaires now. But with streaming, the streamer owns the show and it just stays on the service, isn't making them any money, and serves mostly to bulk up the library and hopefully retain viewers. But how many people still care about House of Cards?

There used to be an incentive to keep a show going because it made everyone -- the network, the stars, and the studio -- money. The longer the show goes, the more expensive it gets, but the studio was ok with it bc they knew they could get it back in syndication. With streamers, the incentive is to end the show when it gets too expensive

The streamers could license their stuff, too, but then they'd lose the exclusivity and make their service less compelling

The CEO of WB, which is both a studio and a streamer, pulled WB's own stuff from its service to avoid paying residuals. He also buried already finished movies for the tax write off. He'd rather license it to free services like Tubi. People hate him. It's a predicament

I think we'd all be better off if everybody went back to licensing to Netflix. Passive income for everyone and viewers don't need to juggle a bunch of services. Those days are gone

 

[steve09090]

The point is that Apple doesn't appear to be doing well in the streaming space. Apple subscriptions include Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, Apple Fitness+, and iCloud. iCloud accounts for a significant portion of Apple's subscription total and that's not a streaming service. Take away iCloud and Apple's subscriptions numbers are pretty low especially given how many total customers Apple has. Again, numbers I've seen for TV+ are only in the 25 to 40 million range. Hence the need for TV+ to curb costs.

It’s hard to argue when we are only guessing. Plus as I said earlier. This Bloomberg report doesn’t actually offer any facts, just subjective analysis, based on 5 year old data.

However, if true, everything in the article relates to efficiency gains. The best time to create efficiencies is when things are going well. The article emphasises the need to be smarter using words like tighter budget controls, financial sustainability and doesn’t even suggest things are not going well.