Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Former Netflix CEO: Apple Not in Streaming Market 'With Both Feet'

Apple TV+ name is confusing with the hardware. The content is too curated to meet specific idealogy. Netflix covers the wider spectrum. Apple wants you to watch their shows. Netflix puts shows made by others they think you want to watch. Apple is in a very different game I think. They made their calculation and figured that as they slow grow their library they will profit from subscription. Only 1 million subscribers can give them $120M/y budget for tv shows. They will build their own exclusive library not found elsewhere, hence no competition in the future.

I also just found out that Netflix that rents movies and films then re-rents it to viewers is worth more than Intel that builds CPUs which are a technological wonder in human history.
 
NeoSe7en said:
That’s easy for Netflix to say when they had a 10+ year head start. I seem to recall Netflix’s streaming library being pretty worthless for its first few years.
Click to expand...

I agree that Netflix catalogiue was underhwelming for a long time, particularly here in the UK. That said Netflix were not one of the richest companies in the world coming into an established market who have already got billions of customers


raindogg said:
I don't know if Apple ever reads this stuff but, they need to stop with the all too perfect family shows. You need a Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Fleabag, The Wire, Chi (First two seasons). They can't keep up with just PG13 shows, you need to pepper in some real ass R rated shows.
Click to expand...


Spot on.

I'm not sure I could imagine them doing something like the Sopranos or Breaking Bad/Narcos about drug dealers. It's a problem though because that is the kind of thing that is popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdr733
AnotherOpinion said:
Give it a few episodes… it gets more meaningful and deeper… really great cast and epsodes.
Click to expand...

Ortiz83 said:
I’m sure there are people out there that don’t like Schindler’s list and that’s considered the number 1 movie ever. Not everyone is going to like everything.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that.. I'm on episode 7 of Ted Lasso and struggling to justify finishing it. I feel like it's either bad acting or poorly casted. Everyone's probably 10 yrs older than their characters should be. I can't seem to fall in love or care about any of the characters. It's got this feeling that it's everyone's first acting gig. What's up with the coach's assistant? He might as well be invisible.

If everyone's all abuzzed over this lackluster product, maybe they should shuffle on over to the Lifetime Channel where they can swim in this type of sappy mediocrity all they want
 
I think Apple should have bought a studio with existing backlog, to start ATV+, just like they bought Beats which already had existing contracts and user base.

Its not like they didn't have the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derekamoss
No rush for Apple. They have their foot in the door and can see how the market develops. Plus they have something Netflix doesn’t have. AirPods Pro Max and theatre-like experience.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: derekamoss
The current OTT war is a battle of attracting paid subscribers, with exclusive access to original content, as well as to popular back catalogs to help retain them while more new content is produced. That's clearly no secret, or any kind of revelation, and the strategy being pursued by all (minus one component by those who lack back catalogs, like Apple).

The relevant question is who would pay much attention to Randolph, who, while he did have a role in founding Netflix…as a DVD rental company…left Netflix roughly a decade before it debuted its first originals, and played no role in the strategy that made it what it is, or relevant to today.

That's like consulting Woz as the sage of Apple's success, when it was Jobs who guided the company to its heights with a different product space. Sure, Woz deserves his place in history, but he had little to nothing to do with what Apple is now, or how it got there, and his record of failed ventures post-Apple don't add to his credibility either.

Like Jobs, Reed Hastings is the constant in Netflix's success, and it was with his support that Ted Sarandos, Chief Content Officer, and now co-CEO as well, built the company into an entertainment force with its own content.

Apple is spending as much as much as anyone not named Netflix on the business, which includes Amazon, Disney and Warner, and can afford to cover those costs with the profits from a single quarter, as it builds the business.

It doesn't have to do anything, including taking advice from the former executive peanut gallery, with no relevant contribution to the space today.
 
HiVolt said:
I think Apple should have bought a studio with existing backlog, to start ATV+, just like they bought Beats which already had existing contracts and user base.

Its not like they didn't have the money.
Click to expand...

To me, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to purchase a back catalog when they are also in the business of selling you iTunes content. I mean, why would I purchase a movie for download if it was also available to stream FOC from Apple?

Different companies have different business models and it affects their approach.

Netflix is “just” a streaming video service. As such, their business model is fairly straightforward - use original content to hook users in and rely on a back catalog to keep them around. It also means that their original content tends to not be very good, because they prioritise quantity over quality.

Disney uses their library of content to further advertise their brand and send users to buy their merchandise and visit their theme parks and cruise attractions. Disney also has a formidable library of content that they already own, which is why they are in no hurry to license anything else.

TV+ is a way of getting people to go into the TV app, where they can then subscribe to additional channels and / or purchase iTunes content (and Apple gets a cut of the proceeds).

Differing incentives means it’s not realistic to expect one company to ape what the competition is doing. Each is competing based on what makes financial and strategic sense for each of them.
 
Abazigal said:
To me, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to purchase a back catalog when they are also in the business of selling you iTunes content. I mean, why would I purchase a movie for download if it was also available to stream FOC from Apple?
Click to expand...
I think less and less people are buying and renting media. I don't think Apple breaks down anything in terms of their store sales/rentals, But just looking at the popularity of music & tv/movie services over the last few years, its probably safe to say that its not as dominant as it was in the iPod era of selling music.

Why do you think Apple got into the streaming music business?

I still think by not having a back catalog of content for ATV+ is a detriment that will always be there, since the other services do have that, regardless of quality of Apple's original content or rights they bought to newly produced content. There will never be something old to watch on it, until the service is maybe 50 years old and "The Morning Show" is considered a classic then.
 
The vast majority of streaming TV/subscriptions are not my thing.

Disney+ being the exception for select Marvel/Star Wars content, mom watches enough to justify us subscribing once our free trial ends later this year. Apple’s content is not my taste, but this is true for Netflix, Amazon and most other streaming providers too.

I prefer to buy to own and watch when I want without needing WiFi or cellular connections. As a result, my Apple movie purchases have dropped significantly with their shift to AppleTV+. Apple’s push toward services is not in my wheel barrel, so try as they might to lure me to Apple TV+ etc., I politely ignore them.

In that sense, I suppose the former Netflix CEO is correct for my particular usage case.
 
HiVolt said:
Why do you think Apple got into the streaming music business?
Click to expand...
My guess is that Apple that too many users were switching over to Spotify and buying less music, so eventually, they felt compelled to enter music streaming in order to protect their ecosystem.
HiVolt said:
I still think by not having a back catalog of content for ATV+ is a detriment that will always be there, since the other services do have that, regardless of quality of Apple's original content or rights they bought to newly produced content. There will never be something old to watch on it, until the service is maybe 50 years old and "The Morning Show" is considered a classic then.
Click to expand...
I would go back to my earlier point about video streaming services not being mutually exclusive the way music streaming is. While I have heard of a few people subbing to both spotify and Apple Music, most people just choose 1 and stick with it.

Let's say that Apple decides to acquire a back catalog. Won't much of the content just end up replicating whatever is already available on other streaming services like Netflix or Amazon Prime? Won't users just be paying extra for content that is already duplicated elsewhere?

I wonder if Apple is okay with Netflix supplying much of this back catalog and they just focus on providing original content at the lowest possible price possible.
 
Abazigal said:
To me, it doesn’t make sense for Apple to purchase a back catalog when they are also in the business of selling you iTunes content. I mean, why would I purchase a movie for download if it was also available to stream FOC from Apple?

Different companies have different business models and it affects their approach.

Netflix is “just” a streaming video service. As such, their business model is fairly straightforward - use original content to hook users in and rely on a back catalog to keep them around. It also means that their original content tends to not be very good, because they prioritise quantity over quality.

Disney uses their library of content to further advertise their brand and send users to buy their merchandise and visit their theme parks and cruise attractions. Disney also has a formidable library of content that they already own, which is why they are in no hurry to license anything else.

TV+ is a way of getting people to go into the TV app, where they can then subscribe to additional channels and / or purchase iTunes content (and Apple gets a cut of the proceeds).

Differing incentives means it’s not realistic to expect one company to ape what the competition is doing. Each is competing based on what makes financial and strategic sense for each of them.
Click to expand...

Apple might be able to pick up Warner for cheap, once AT&T, or its creditors, force it to raise the white flag. but it also depends on how bold the anti-trust regulators are feeling.

Netflix has been outspending everyone by magnitudes, and has reached the point where it doesn't have to find outside money, and can support itself. Still, its long-term debt is 1/10th of what AT&T has on its shoulders and it is in a good place.

Disney has already hit its fourth-year subscriber numbers, but in many ways, it's unfair to judge the others by that bar, when it brought more chips to the table than anyone else.

It's a marathon, not a sprint, and Apple can afford to play the long game. That doesn't make it any less of a challenge, nor guarantee any level of success, but at least Apple didn't bet the farm, or go into serious hock just to play the game.
 
Yeah well when Netflix is pretty much the only service missing in the TV app, which makes it really difficult to find what movies are on Netflix when I'm using the app I use for finding everything else, it makes me not want to subscribe to their service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexhardaker and GermanSuplex
mondaiguy said:
Yeah well when Netflix is pretty much the only service missing in the TV app, which makes it really difficult to find what movies are on Netflix when I'm using the app I use for finding everything else, it makes me not want to subscribe to their service.
Click to expand...

Apple TV+service is different from the TV App.

Netflix did not want the ATV app to search Netflix catalogue. This is because the TV app also gives recommendations which Netflix feels interferes with their own algorithms.
 
Yeah I may just cancel Netflix. With the non-integration in the Apple TV app, and the price hikes, and the non-originals quickly going away little by little, I just don't see why I keep paying these guys. Every other app I use, I just open it right form the TV app and it is nice, because I just keep all the streaming apps hidden in a folder, never look at them again. I wish I didn't even need all the apps, just pay through Apple and watch to my hearts content, all in one easy to use app.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexhardaker
I don’t mind that Netflix is not integrated with TV App. I use it only for AppleTV+, because I find it confusing and the “Up Next” (especially the widget) is usually just a mess.

The individual apps (Disney+ etc.) are not perfect but all of them better than the TV App.

(And wow, this web page is still making my phone run hot) ?
 
2010mini said:
Apple TV+service is different from the TV App.

Netflix did not want the ATV app to search Netflix catalogue. This is because the TV app also gives recommendations which Netflix feels interferes with their own algorithms.
Click to expand...
I thought the real reason Netflix is not joining the TV app is the fact that Apple gets to keep viewership data that way, which was something Netflix was heavily locked down on for a very long time (they only started giving out numbers a year ago afaik?).

I honestly don't even want Netflix to join the TV app anymore, I got used to having to use 2 apps now (TV app and then Netflix separately)... what really grinds my gears is the fact that they still didn't even acknowledge SharePlay functionality. I wonder if they one day add support for that... they're like the last big streaming service without a group watch feature? There's really no excuse to not implement SharePlay support because it's dirt cheap to do so, all the heavy lifting is done by Apple via FaceTime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back