Why did you suck me into watching the preview of For All Mankind to find out Kinnaman is in it. I will not buy an AppleTV. I will not buy an AppleTV. I will not buy an AppleTV.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV+ May Support Downloads for Offline Viewing, Limit Simultaneous Streams
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I always thought these arbitrary restrictions were in place because the dinosaur media companies required it for licensing terms. But if Apple owns the content, why be so customer hostile? I thought they were supposed to think different. Lately they are more inclined to think dollars.
Why would I ever subscribe to this? or the Apple card for that matter...I am sure some people would
People might subscribe to this for TV shows and movies, similar to why one might subscribe to Netflix for instance. I'm not sure I can justify the $9.99 cost myself, especially with Disney+ coming soon, but I probably would consider it at $4.99 or less.
As for the Apple Card, the good news is that it's subscription free, so you don't need to subscribe. I plan on getting one next year. I've seen it in action personally from a family member's account.
Lol, a few Emmy's doesn't fix their debt or profitability problems.
Most Netflix content watched is licensed, fact. Once they lose more content like The Office and Friends (5% of all watched hours on the platform) they will be in trouble.
Netflix already had to raise money and will likely need to again. The valuation is insane in comparison to Disney and was only based on speculation the future would be brighter. That valuation is starting to fall and Disney is now worth over $100B more than Netflix.
You are an unabashed Apple hater. Apple has money which is what you need in content to create or acquire. Netflix’s biggest problem is they don’t have enough money or profitability. $1B in profit per year is practically nothing for a company with their valuation.
Last edited:
I feel N.O. shows/movies are usually actually pretty good.. Dave Chapelle, Titans (Kids and I like Teen Titans), Black Mirror and some others I can't think of right now. The other Platforms can at least look at Netflix and take notes. So we will see if it's better to be ahead of the game or do (what Apple likes to do) sit back and perfect it after it's been done [by Netflix]
While I don't think Netflix is even remotely in trouble, even after they lose most of the licensed TV contents, they have to rethink their business model, which depends on:
- Increasing subscription price every 18 months or so.
- Producing "seemingly infinite" number of Netflix Originals so that they can be suggested instead of searched titles.
- Stop increasing subscription price.
- Consolidate 3 plans into 1 plan. HD and UHD are not something Netflix can continue charging extra for. And generous account sharing outside a single household is probably not good for their bottom line. I think a single $12.99/month plan that includes UHD and 3 simultaneous streaming within the same household is an ideal balance. Maybe offer referral bonus where both referred and referees get $2-3 off or so.
- Offer cheaper ad-supported plan to compete against $5.99/month Hulu (while offering ad-free plan at premium price).
- Decrease Netflix Originals output. Quality matters more than quantity. Acquire companies like AMC or CBS instead.
- Offer discounted annual payment option to reduce churn.
$50 is fine, it pretty much costs that now for two people. Which is why we stopped going. I’m not paying $50 to watch a movie and deal with people around me talking, playing on their phone, smelling, kicking the back of my seat the whole time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Titans is actually not a Netflix original in the U.S.
It's a DC Universe original, and is licensed to Netflix outside the U.S. Will probably be available on HBO Max in the U.S. next year as well.
That service would likely cost several hundred dollars a month, to offset the chances (or Hollywood's fears) that you'd have a dozen friends over to watch all those movies (lost ticket sales), along with offsetting the amount by which the movie theater exclusivity is devalued now that it's no longer exclusive (theater owners won't want to pay as much for the films), and also banking a bunch of money as insurance against the chance (likelihood?) that someone works out how to decrypt the streams (regardless of what they use) and then posts up on the internet, whatever the then-current box-office equivalent of Endgame is, in perfect 4K quality, the day it hits theaters - they've invested hundreds of millions in the movie, and some guy in his basement could literally cost them a few hundred million in profit (and it's not like they can recover $100mil from Joe Pirate if they win a case against him). So, yeah, if they offered day & date streaming for the big movies, I expect it'd cost WAY more than most would be willing to pay.
[doublepost=1566344197][/doublepost]
Really? You've played all the release games? Are you breaking NDA right now?
Amazon won three oscars. What are you talking about?
Also, you are ignoring what he wrote. You don’t think Netflix is scared to death of Disney+? If not, they should be.
They started worrying years ago. They've been smart. Hopefully, they hope, when all the Disney content is gone, people are going to stay for the Netflix content.
Completely agree. No one should be scared of Apple when it comes to content creation. The Big 3 of Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon are well established streaming options that have been doing this a loooong time. Based on what Apple has to offer, there's no way I'd pay $10 per month for their service. I don't see them disrupting the streaming industry. Disney's $6.99 plan is a far, far better option. They are the ones the other providers should be concerned about.
I have to say, the Netflix content kind of sucks.
It may not be as easy as you think. Theater chains like AMC and Regal do have a lot of clout. They can, and have in the past refused to screen movies that are released on streaming services or for rental at the same time. At that point, the movie essentially becomes a direct to video release. No studio can afford to do that.
The idea that you speak of is not new. I forget the name, but I do believe that a company offers new release rentals. But the cost is very high, and their clientele is mostly millionaires. They install special copy protection hardware in the house to make sure new releases are not leaked. That business model can survive cause theater chains are not worried about high cost rentals to millionaires. But they won’t stand by to allow their exclusivity be lost to the mass market.
True. But there are restrictions. You cannot download more than 5 episodes/movies at once. I ran into this when I recently tried to download a TV show for a long international flight. No idea if the restriction is coming from HBO or Apple, but perhaps a sign of what to expect in Apple TV+.
Note that the Netflix iOS app has a much more generous limit (up to 100 episodes).
I don't know if Apple will succeed or fail in this endeavor.
However, yes, they should be scared. Apple has tapped some pretty BIG names for creating content.
Will all of it be good or great? Probably not. Apple will probably have some stinkers in the bunch, as well as multiple quality shows that won't find an audience, much like every TV network or streaming service has experienced.
I find multiple shows being developed for Apple TV+ to be intriguing, but I personally find $9.99 to be too high for starting out with so little content, even if they add catalog content from A24 or a spattering from various studios.
I personally couldn't justify the cost of HBO Now, but some people do.
Just because you do not find value in Apple TV+ at this time, does not mean you won't find value in the service two years from now. Remember, the service hasn't even launched yet.
Netflix saw this day coming way back which is why they started pouring billions into Netflix Originals, so that they too could have a library of exclusive back content. They were pretty successful with Stranger Things and Black Mirror becoming cultural hits in of themselves.
Apple has deeper pockets though. It has given them a direct link to very well connected TV industry leaders and talent. I can already spot some of Apple's shows that have a high potential of becoming so talked about that even people outside of Apple's ecosystem will subscribe.
This is why I think that Apple will bundle Music + TV under a single $9.99 subscription. AppleMusic has always been about selling more iPhones (and now Watches + AirPods). TV however, doesn't have the same hardware sales potential since most people aren't going to sit watching TV on their iPhones for hours. Sure, it might sell an iPad or two but it's certainly not going to make Apple a ton of money selling AppleTV boxes.
Apple has deliberately freed AppleTV (the app) from AppleTV (the hardware), making it as widely available through third party TVs and media boxes as possible. By bundling TV with Music, Apple would succeed at their first goal: tying people into Apple Music which in turn leads to selling more iPhones, Apple's moneymaker.
More competition is fantastic. We are so fortunate that we can subscribe and quickly unsubscribe with the click of a button. More choices is definitely better in this case.