It depends.
Netflix has a lot of global content. There is a lot of content for a very broad demographic and is very accessible. Most people don’t subscribe to Amazon Prime for only their catalog.
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.
Former HBO CEO Richard Plepler Inks Five-Year Apple TV+ Production Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends.
Netflix has a lot of global content. There is a lot of content for a very broad demographic and is very accessible. Most people don’t subscribe to Amazon Prime for only their catalog.
What is your point? You can watch it on a phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, or TV. You can use a roku, Fire TV, or your smart TV app. That’s like complaining that Orlando will fail because the only way to travel there is by foot, bike, car, train, or airplane.
[automerge]1578021738[/automerge]
I love the unsupported apps these guys release. Apple should totally play catch up by investing in ecosystems that will be replaced soon.
Last edited:
It only needs to be everywhere if Apple’s goal is to obtain the most Apple TV+ subscriptions that it possibly can. That’s clearly not their primary goal based on the business decisions they’ve made about the platforms that can be used to stream their content.
As you’ve correctly pointed out all other major streaming services, including Amazon, have decided it’s more important for their service to be available on as many devices as possible to have the most subscribers possible than it is for them to knowingly not appeal to certain subscribers based on the hardware those subscribers are using to stream their content.
Have a look at Amazon. They’ve made the business decision to make apps available for hardware platforms they compete with to allow those users to stream content from their streaming services. They didn’t have to do that. If device sales were more important they wouldn’t have made apps for as many competing hardware platforms.
Apple has willingly made the opposite decision. They’ve not made apps available to stream Apple TV+ content on as many platforms as possible. Why? Simple. Their goal with Apple TV+ isn’t to sign up as many subscribers as possible. Their goal is to make their hardware and software ecosystem as sticky as it possibly can be.
They want to ensure you continue to buy Apple hardware that you use in conjunction with Apple software and Apple services to continue to extract as much revenue per Apple user as they can.
That’s why Apple Music on Android is clearly an after thought and will probably go the way of the dodo bird now that Apple Music is clearly a success. That’s why Apple has gotten rid of iTunes on the Mac but continues to produce a version for Windows. That’s why iMessages has never been ported to Android or Windows and never will be. That’s why so many Apple services don’t have an Android or Windows based equivalent and never will.
Apple does not care about the total number of subscribers for its services if expanding their overall subscriber base means reducing the amount of money it can make from an average Apple user. The biggest chunk of that revenue comes from hardware sales.
Apple saw the writing on the wall. The two year smartphone upgrade cycle and two to four year tablet upgrade cycle that was driving their profits post iPhone and iPad was never going to last.
To make up for that lost revenue they needed to increase their revenue from services and increase their revenue from wearables that augment their devices. With Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, etc. and Apple Watch, AirPods and Apple TV they are having success doing just that. Their stock price just hit a record high. Whatever you think of Apple post Steve Jobs you have to give them this. They know how to make money hand over fist and that simply isn’t possible unless more often than not you are doing something right.
Last edited:
LG? Sony? Viso? Only Samsung has the app right now. They do support Airplay 2. But CES 2020 is next week so let's see.
Not unless Apple makes orders of magnitude changes in available content. Not sure about Amazon. Disney+ is a significant challenge.
Now that HBO's reign as the premiere quality streaming service is coming to an end with HBO Max, it iooks as if Apple TV+ may become its' replacement. AT&T prioritizes profits (and quantity) over quality.
The full quote was:
However to clarify most every TCL set is a Roku TV, and all of those have the app. Most FireTVs also have the app. LG and Vizo both have Airplay 2 and can stream from an Apple device.
Last edited:
They would be worrried because they don’t have the combination of Pelper & deep pockets. Not to mention Apples $4.99 price for Apple TV+. Hints why I made the commen, & said it was a match made in heaven, & it’s also why so many tech websites are mentioning this story.
Netflix should be worried by everyone. Before they had full market, now every new player is potential big threat to netflix. Netflix can't lose subscribers. (Currently they are) They are already spending more money on content than they are gaining new subscribers. In short, they are screwed.
Netflix needs original hit after hit and currently they are just trying way too much based on their offerings which shows they are panicking. Their service is too expensive and i don't think they can lower the price or maybe they add ads, but definately they need to do some big moves this year.
Netflix is biggest loser in this game, also netflix just lost friends.
I also think they have too much low/mediocre quality product. That needs to stop ASAP. They probably should focus on non-US for subscriber growth, so more foreign content. Raising prices further would be cutting their own throat; like you say they really should be cutting prices. Financing new content by selling bonds is unsustainable. No one wants ads, that would result in a huge exodus of subscribers. They could add a $4.99 ad-supported tier though.
Glad I don’t own Netflix.
Being a successful head of a content producer is about more than recognizing talent, it is about understanding the market, seeing ideas that are ripe and finding producers, directors, writers, etc., who can execute them and create successful products.
That is not quite how it works. While the head of a studio is not involved in line production, he or she needs to actively manage these projects to prevent them “going off the rails”. Just having a good idea and a good team is not enough. Deciding to increase or decrease budgets based on how the production is going, increasing or decreasing the episode count, firing writers, directors and/or producers are all part of the process.
Or not.
The is no guarantee that just because one was successful in one role in this process that one will be successful in another role, nor is it guaranteed that being successful at one point in time (even if that is a 10 year period) at one company will translate to success at a different point in time at a different company.As they say in finance: “past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
However, lacking any other metric, it is the best we have, so we use it.
Considering what we know AT&T is currently doing to HBO, I'm so glad a different service is going to try to create old school HBO content.
Do you think when the next Xbox and PS come out the 100s of millions of old consoles just disappear? Smart observation.
Do you think there is a giant market of people who only have an Xbox One or a Playstation 4 who do not have a SmartTV that either has AirPlay 2 or the AppleTV+ app? Again, Apple is not concerned about AppleTV+ as a standalone service, but only as a way to enhance its ecosystem.
No - obviously not. Just the support.
The number one handheld console is the 3DS, and even with more than twice as many console sales as the XBox One, Netflix support is as flaky as a dead lichen.
What do you mean focus on non-US subscriber growth? Isn’t that what they have been focusing on? Their non-US subscribers is more than their US subscribers
I suppose I should have phrased it as “Give up on US subscriber growth”.
Hastings is even more out to lunch than usual. On one hand he acknowledges that price increases are responsible for the poor performance of the US subscriber base. But in the next breath he says Netflix is "incredibly low-priced compared to cable... we think we have a lot of room there".
Really? You think $16 for Netflix with less and less decent third party content (and worse and worse original content) is somehow a good deal because it’s cheaper than a $50 or $100 cable TV package? That’s the substitute you use in your mind? Yikes.
Newsflash: the days of cord cutters subscribing only to Netflix are long gone. HBO/HBO+ is $15, Hulu is $12, Peacock $10, Disney Plus $7, Apple TV+ $5, That’s already $49 and $16 for Netflix—the most expensive already—makes it $65, with just the mainstream streaming channels. No CBS all access, Amazon Prime, Britbox, Crunchy Roll, Criterion Channel or whatever.
Then if you do want cable-type channels your looking at maybe $40 for Sling or $60+ for AT&T TV and your back in the $100-150 range before you know it.
So no, Hastings, at $16 you don’t have “a lot of room” to raise prices. You’re in competition with a market basket of streaming services (vs. cable); it’s not Netflix vs. cable anymore—those were “the good old days”. Wake up.
Like I said, glad I don’t own Netflix.
Although US subscribers are valuable, it will start to stale when your target demographic is tapped. Global expansion is very important in hitting the numbers. There are a ton of untapped territories still out there
As far as international content, Netflix has a decent amount for Latin and European countries. This is based on French and Brazilian netflix accounts. The catalog is fairly different than US, partly due to licensing agreements. Everything is localized as well. Some content such as Casa De Papel (Money Heist) was watched a lot internationally and raved about.
And it sounds like you’re complaining about costs of all these services. Do what many people do: share accounts. And you could’ve figured it out long ago that a’la cart pricing would be more than cable.
You’ve completely missed my point somehow. My point, which I believe I made quite clearly, is that Hastings thinking he has a lot of room to raise prices because Netflix is "incredibly low-priced compared to cable” is a ludicrous statement.
That thinking would have been fine ten years ago when Netflix was the only game in town. But when there are other, very attractive alternatives to his highest-priced service—and when people often subscribe to multiple services—it makes zero sense to claim there’s “a lot of room there” to raise prices. To think, “hey cable costs $50-100, Netflix is cheap at $16” is ridiculous because an increasingly filler-stuffed Netflix catalog with original content that’s declining in quality—and simultaneously losing good, unlicenseable content—isn’t a substitute by any stretch of the imagination for 300 cable channels/DVR.
Personally, I have no problem with the costs of streaming services. I pay for comm’l free Hulu, Netflix, Disney Plus, have Amazon Prime as a throw-in because of Prime shipping, have HBO free because of AT&T cellular, and have Kanopy and Hoopla free through the local library. Haven’t even bothered to sign up for Apple TV+ yet since there’s too much to watch as it is. I’ll probably cancel Netflix with the next price increase just to send a message (10-year subscriber here) and subscribe sporadically when new seasons of shows I like drop.
For all the reasons I’ve previously mentioned, at this point I see Hastings’ BS as more of an attempted investor con job than anything else, and wouldn’t touch their stock with a 10 foot pole.
Netflix's biggest challenge today is still to turn a profit. I estimate that they would need to charge at least double their current rates in order to do so, but as mentioned above, it would be suicide to do so when competition is stiffer than ever. This also means that with more companies bidding for content and talent, Netflix potentially faces higher costs as well.
Companies like Apple, AtnT and Disney simply don't face this issue because streaming isn't their core business, and they have incredibly deep pockets to keep it afloat forever.
^^ This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Essentially, Netflix is diving in the ocean with a quarter the amount of oxygen of Disney, Apple, ATT and Amazon.
Having watched both The Mandalorian and For All Mankind, I like the latter better. This is of course a personal taste issue, so you may not agree. I was also surprised how much I have liked The Morning Show.
No one likes price increases and arrogance (surprise!). However, I can see it from his perspective. Aside from sports and if Netflix can continue to procure temporal distribution rights to popular broadcast shows, it still can come out cheaper for many people. You say it’s filler, but that’s exactly what cordcutting was about. Everyone has their sources to backfill things that they lost when they cut cable. Netflix is one piece to that permutation pie.
I don’t care about the stock. It has nothing to do with me as a consumer.
Just to clarify, are you arguing that he is correct that he can raise prices and not lose more revenue than he gains?
I do not care about his perspective, I care about mine.
I get NetFlix as part of my TMobile phone plan. At this point, if that went away, I am not sure I would subscribe for $16, let alone more. With Disney+, Apple TV+, Hulu and CBS All Access, I am getting close to all the content I can watch.As for the company as a company, I do not really care in that if they went away tomorrow, I would not lose anything (unlike companies from whom I purchase vs. rent products) I owned. I would expect that someone would pick up the rights from their corpse and the content would still be available somewhere. I am not convinced their model is sustainable, but I guess only time will tell.