10 ms·

Apple tries to rein in Hollywood spending after years of losses

64 points by mgh2 2y ago

retskrad 2y ago
Most of the worlds population have their attention on YouTube and TikTok. Streaming services are a minuscule portion of the viewing pie. It makes no sense for talented young people to want jobs in Hollywood when it's a dying business or at best stagnating one.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  While that may be an exaggeration, there's some truth to it. My kid is not even remotely interested in traditional "movies" or "tv shows." Same with all her friends. To a kid, sitting down in front of a TV to watch cable or stream a Netflix movie is something old people do. I don't think Hollywood's death is imminent, but the early signs are appearing.
  - ojbyrne 2y ago
    I dunno how old your kid is, but short attention span seems like an inherent part of childhood that you grow out of.
  - saturn8601 2y ago
    That also helps to explain why for the past two years, a large chunk of movies ive gone to see with my AMC theater subscription have been empty theaters. Probably not sustainable to run a theater serving 1-2 people. I've seen them run movies to an empty audience...
christkv 2y ago
For me apple tv is something that comes with my apple one family plan. No way i would pay for it separately.
geodel 2y ago
They could also try Goldman partnership. I am sure they'd love to get in entertainment business just to be partner with Apple.
maxsilver 2y ago
Is Apple really eating "years of losses". Or are they making a strategic play to pick up most of the prestige television market, without needing to push an M&A through the FTC (and they're doing it, just as David Zaslav is finishing killing the historic-largest player there, as HBO dies on the vine at Warner Brothers) To me, it sure feels like the latter. Apple spending $20 billion to pick up all this prestige TV and Film, is kind of a great deal, when compared to say, the $43 billion Discovery just paid for Warner, just to kill half of it (and then lose another $7 billon on it over the past 2-3 years)
PaulHoule 2y ago
Something that seems strange to me is the deal they made with MLS which I don’t think was great for MLS. Today MLS has the problem that people think “American soccer sucks” and won’t give it a chance. I caught a game in person because I was interested in the state of American soccer and between the game and the fan experience I had a great time. A sport that has room to grow has to be easy for people to catch a game who aren’t committed to subscribing to it. They can win people over if they can catch an occasional game for free but if it is behind a paywall 100% of the time it’s going to stay obscure. NBC runs a free Premier League game every Saturday and if you want more you can get it as part of a reasonably priced Peacock subscriptions. The deal Apple has with MLS might be a good deal for Apple but I don’t think it’s good for the sport.
- darknavi 2y ago
  > The deal Apple has with MLS might be a good deal for Apple but I don’t think it’s good for the sport. Did you try to stream it before Apple got the rights to MLS games? About 10 years ago MLS had an all-in-one streaming platform called MLS LIVE. Minor local blackouts, but other than that its the one stop shop. Then they shut that down and you have to follow a flow chart on how to watch anything. Is the game "local"? Are you "local"? Is it a "big" game that is streamed nationally? What does the magic 8 ball say for which local station has the rights to the broadcast? ESPN+ had some of the games but no where near all. Pirating the game was about 10x easier, as you just time in "free MLS stream". Apple TV is a single place to watch the games. No blackouts. No ouija board to figure out how to watch it. So much easier than pirating, the quality is good, and I can watch it where ever I want. Whether or not the deal was good for the MLS organization monetarily, I have no idea. But for consumers it has been really great in my opinion.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
righthand 2y ago
Every company that jumped into streaming has this issue and was warned about this from the start. Even Netflix struggles from this, the simple solution is to stop billing top tier workers and lower quality. This is how you get a Frasier reboot in jeans. Also extra funny for Apple as their projected attitude is that they are always top tier with unlimited funds.
wkat4242 2y ago
Hmm the only thing I really thought was worth watching was for all mankind. And they've kinda painted themselves into a corner (as the show runners said, there's only so much you can do to age the characters) It was a decent show though. But it wouldn't make me subscribe. That would take a lot more.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  Severance was good, but three years between seasons is too long.
cbsmith 2y ago
This seems like an odd spin/reeks of PR and politics more than the reality. $20B spend is just fine if you have the revenue to justify it. They've just struggled with the revenue. Killers of the Flower Moon brought in $157 million at the box office --that's without streaming revenue, but I think even that would still be considered a failure... and some of the others have been huge stinkers.
- whoisjuan 2y ago
  AppleTV+ is a tiny business. It's nowhere near of generating enough revenue to cover a $20B hole in content production costs. Yes, Apple generates LOTS of revenue overall, but that doesn't justify bleeding cash on a business line that hasn't produced material returns and has no significant positive trajectory in sight. It's clear that Apple saw this as their Prime Video bet on their services strategy, but that hasn't worked out. Just look at AppleTV+ market share. It's hilariously miniscule.
  - alemanek 2y ago
    Apple can afford to play the long game here though. TV+ is nice value add on their bundled subscription package so may be driving more people to opt for that. I know it was a major factor in my decision and now I am playing Apple Arcade games and use Apple Music as my primary music service. Operating TV+ as a halo or loss leader product to get people to try other services within the ecosystem could be a winning strategy for them. Also likely drives some hardware sales.
    - whywhywhywhy 2y ago
      In what world does Apple need a “loss leader” to “drive hardware sales”. They have some of the highest sales for high value products in the world. What the goal of this was obviously to scoop $10 more cream a month from a % of those huge sales numbers. “Loss Leader” theory makes no sense next to Apples financial and sales reality.
      - 2y ago
stuppalupp 2y ago
How about letting Android users watch your shows?
- buildbot 2y ago
  https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/Apple_TV?id=com.apple.atve.sony.appletv&hl=en_ZA https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/Apple_TV?id=com.a...
  - prpl 2y ago
    Also there's a FireTV app (and has been for years)
  - protastus 2y ago
    "This app is not available for your device" I have a Pixel 6.
    - buildbot 2y ago
      https://tv.apple.com/ https://tv.apple.com/ You can watch online then
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Apple only offers an “Apple TV” app in the Play Store for streaming devices and television sets powered by Android/Google TV. There is no mobile app for phones and tablets. Those with mobile Android devices and Chromebooks are officially told to use tv.apple.com. https://9to5google.com/2024/03/03/apple-tv-android-app/ https://9to5google.com/2024/03/03/apple-tv-android-app/
- elAhmo 2y ago
  The purpose of Apple TV+ is to lock you down in iPhone/Apple ecosystem, even if they are losing the money on the service itself. So, good luck with that.
  - tiltowait 2y ago
_fat_santa 2y ago
The entire steaming sector has become unsustainable. On the one hand, for a service to be successful in the space they have to dump millions if not billions of dollars towards developing content. The problem is that with so many streaming platforms doing the same thing dilutes the value of that content and makes it unsustainable.
- e40 2y ago
  Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle's Netflix deals make that point more than anything I've seen. Rock got $20M each for 2 specials. I think Dave has made that (or more) for a bunch of specials.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  Netflix is doing OK. Their stock price might be wildly inflated, but they have been able to show profits since 2003.
- Fripplebubby 2y ago
  I think you are painting with a very broad brush. In general Wall St keeps very close tabs on every big streamer and is pushing them all to be profitable yesterday. There was a time when investors were happy to subsidize customer acquisition, but that time is over and I think you haven't updated your outlook. That said, there is still some room to run.
- jerlam 2y ago
  There's also so much good existing content across all the streaming services that a typical adult with a job and responsibilities has enough to watch right now for the next several years, without watching anything "new". When I had a mail-by-DVD Netflix account, I don't think my queue ever dropped below 20. I have a sizeable watchlist / saved list on every streaming service I have used, and it also never goes down to zero.
  - somedude895 2y ago
    Same with all media to be honest. Literature, videogames, music. There's been an uncountable number of masterworks over the past decades and you could fill a whole lifetime with incredible content. We're drowning in slop and we don't need the floodgates fully open for another decade to find the occasional nugget.
dawnerd 2y ago
Does it have to be a money maker if it’s doing its job in bringing more value to the Apple ecosystem? I see it as more of a marketing budget.
- afavour 2y ago
  It certainly _could_ be a loss leader but I can't think of a single instance I've heard where someone switched to an iPhone/Apple TV because of an Apple TV show they wanted to watch. (wouldn't even make sense to, they have an Android app)
  - christkv 2y ago
    It’s just part of the apple one family plan i have so an added bonus
  - philistine 2y ago
    They don't just have an Android app, they have an app everywhere. Apple TV+ is as ubiquitous as Netflix at this point. Hell, they have an Xbox app! How minuscule is the confluence of I have an Xbox, and I pay for Apple TV+, but I don't have an Apple TV device. I'm wondering if at some point Apple doesn't look at how much engineering effort goes into all those useless apps for a service that is bleeding money and decides to reassign the workforce. Money is basically infinite for Apple, but good engineers are its most valuable resource.
  - swores 2y ago
    It doesn't necessarily have to lead to any specific "I'm buying an Apple device because of Apple TV+" to be positive ROI marketing, the same way not all adverts have to be aimed at direct conversion to be useful. Just getting Android users to have a daily reminder of "Apple makes something that is high quality and I enjoy" could be enough to influence future purchasing decisions even if those people wouldn't explicitly consider their enjoyment of Apple TV+ to be the reason they eventually bought an Apple device. (I have no reason to specifically believe that Apple TV+ is ROI-positive in this way, just pointing out that non-conversion brand awareness marketing is a huge part of the marketing world, with often very positive results.)
afavour 2y ago
It's a shame because Apple TV is producing some wonderful sci-fi right now, arguably they're about the only ones doing it to this level. And I'm sure it'll be first on the chopping block while the inflated budgets for the star-studded Morning Show are more likely to be maintained. I hope I'm wrong and that Apple sees value in producing wonderful, niche TV. But at the same time that's not really Apple's ethos.
- e40 2y ago
  Dark Matter was really good. I hope there's a season 2.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  Severance was outstanding. Next season coming 2025, fingers crossed.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  It does feel like Apple TV has gained a reputation for science fiction (and just generally nerdy things), there are multiple articles out there on it. Putting out the type of content we used to expect from HBO. So my hope would be they would realize that, lean into it, and cut their other experiments or just not do movies as much. I know for me anytime I see a new science fiction show on Apple TV I feel like it is at least worth checking out the first couple episodes, and I have not been upset yet.
- josteink 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dewey 2y ago
    I've watched many Apple TV+ shows and this never occurred to me. Confirmation bias on your end?
    - josteink 2y ago
      [flagged]
0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
Am I singularly cursed or is Apple TV the worst quality platform? On a Roku, I routinely run into numerous glitches. Controls do not show, show will not start, show will die after a few minutes, will get stuck in a loop where it repeats a 10 second clip, etc. Coincidentally, my free trial ends tomorrow, and I will not be renewing.
- e40 2y ago
  What are you watching on? I have an Apple TV 4k and it's the best experience I've ever seen. I had Roku's for a long time and just got tired of them (bad performance, glitches).
- solardev 2y ago
  It might be the Roku? Works fine for me on Chromecast with TV, and also previously on my Apple TV.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 2y ago
  It was fine on my 1st generation Amazon Fire TV 4K. That's nearly 6 year old hardware.
- toast0 2y ago
  I had a pretty similar experience with Apple TV+ on my Roku; so you're not alone. Maybe their player app is better on their platform or other non Roku platforms, but I'm not likely to look.
- jwells89 2y ago
  I've read that Apple TV+'s higher than average bitrate can cause a lot of streaming boxes to struggle, not sure if that's what's happening here though. It's been solid for me, to the point that I subscribe to other services through the built-in channels feature in order to be able to avoid generally worse streaming apps (like Paramount+) but I always watch using Apple stuff.
- para_parolu 2y ago
scarface_74 2y ago
Ballmer was quoted in the Acquired podcast about his failed acquisitions “all we lost is money”. Apple can sustain the revenue loss as long as it has to stomach to do so and as long as it can justify it for other business reasons - like maybe making the bundle more attractive.
- geodel 2y ago
  They can. But I think news articles are claiming Apple is looking to control cost and reduce losses.
- talldayo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - pvg 2y ago
    Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
crazygringo 2y ago
To be clear, because the article isn't obvious about it: the $20B figure is total expenditure since its inception, not a yearly figure. For comparison, Netflix spent $17B in 2022, and $13B in 2023 (it was lower due to strikes). Disney spent $33B on content in 2022. Meanwhile, Apple spent $7B in 2022. (All numbers from Google top results). So Apple's still spending significantly less than main "competitors", of course. It's extremely weird for an article to give an all-time spending figure and then call it "unsustainable", when obviously sustainability depends entirely on spending per year compared with revenue per year, and this article doesn't even talk about the revenue side at all (Apple TV+ costs $9.99/mo. standalone.) It's also hard to define "sustainability" when it's not even clear that Apple's goal is to make a profit directly, but may be to take a loss that is less than the perceived marketing value that this adds to the Apple aura/brand. EDIT: my comment is referring to the original URL for this post which was https://wccftech.com/apple-tv-expenditure-crossed-20-billion/ https://wccftech.com/apple-tv-expenditure-crossed-20-billion... , not the Bloomberg article which the URL has since been changed to
- joe_the_user 2y ago
  Yeah, the opaqueness of the profits and losses of Hollywood's production process have been infamous since Mel Brooks' The Producers - in 1967. A few stars, directors, producers or etc can determine the success of a production when there's full competition - maybe, everything is uncertain. The gist of the discussion is that Neflix is will to pay less by virtue of having become such a monopoly it can just dictate the winners. But as the parent says, what's happening with Apple is likely much more opaque.
- toast0 2y ago
  > this article doesn't even talk about the revenue side at all (Apple TV+ costs $9.99/mo. standalone.) Apple TV+ isn't the only way to monetize the projects either. One hopes at least some of these will come out on disc, and many of them are likely to show up on other streaming and perhaps even broadcast. Media has a long tail of revenue, although it's often unclear who has rights to that revenue.
  - 2y ago
Argonaut998 2y ago
They just don’t advertise their shows, at least where I live.
Jcowell 2y ago
I have three major gripes with Apple TV (plus and otherwise) 1. The website is ass. i’ve attempted nervous times to sign into my gaming PC before giving up and using my Apple device. Great for my Apple device but ass if I ever want to watch it on my gaming PC , meaning i’m consuming less media on it. This makes it uniquely terrible for its other goal of folks purchasing their media on there since it’s linked with Apple TV. Idiotic for a streaming service. 2. There’s no consistent release of shows to watch all year round. Netflix imo is the only services that releases stuff every month. for other services this is no issue since they have a backlog of content for consumers to consume but Apple TV+ does not have this pleasure imo. for a service that relies on subscriptions for its revenue, it’s the worst to plead for its case. 3. No watch history. Whenever I hear a new show recommendation I immediately open the tv app and add it to my up next. The Tv’s app’s ability to connect to various streaming serves makes it the nexus for most media. Why the hell does it not support the opposing feature of saving the history of what just watched? It should be so easy for it to add on a Letterboxd like feature from there.
yardie 2y ago
I really enjoy the programming on Apple TV+. I've also never paid for it. Through various promotions and bundles I've had it continuously for 5 years $0 spent on it. Just purchasing Apple products over time I racked up 3-12 month free offers and now its bundled in my internet package. They are also doing that traditional HBO thing where they get AAA movies for a limited time and then poof. I'm hoping they continue to update the UI to make it easier to find new shows and viewing history.
Suppafly 2y ago
Maybe it's my subjective preferences, but honestly Apple TV+ kinda sucks content-wise. Also, the experience is subpar. It regularly forces you to relogin, but instead of just saying so, shows that you're logged in but all of the actual content looks like you're not logged in until you login again, and then you have to do 2-factor and re-acknowledge that all your info is correct and then go back to the apple tv+ site and login again. Maybe the experience is better if you're using apple products?
neonate 2y ago
https://archive.ph/9cNmK https://archive.ph/9cNmK

64 points by mgh2 2y ago

Most of the worlds population have their attention on YouTube and TikTok. Streaming services are a minuscule portion of the viewing pie. It makes no sense for talented young people to want jobs in Hollywood when it's a dying business or at best stagnating one.

ryandrake 2y ago
While that may be an exaggeration, there's some truth to it. My kid is not even remotely interested in traditional "movies" or "tv shows." Same with all her friends. To a kid, sitting down in front of a TV to watch cable or stream a Netflix movie is something old people do. I don't think Hollywood's death is imminent, but the early signs are appearing.
- ojbyrne 2y ago
  I dunno how old your kid is, but short attention span seems like an inherent part of childhood that you grow out of.
- saturn8601 2y ago
  That also helps to explain why for the past two years, a large chunk of movies ive gone to see with my AMC theater subscription have been empty theaters. Probably not sustainable to run a theater serving 1-2 people. I've seen them run movies to an empty audience...

christkv 2y ago

For me apple tv is something that comes with my apple one family plan. No way i would pay for it separately.

geodel 2y ago

They could also try Goldman partnership. I am sure they'd love to get in entertainment business just to be partner with Apple.

maxsilver 2y ago

Is Apple really eating "years of losses". Or are they making a strategic play to pick up most of the prestige television market, without needing to push an M&A through the FTC (and they're doing it, just as David Zaslav is finishing killing the historic-largest player there, as HBO dies on the vine at Warner Brothers) To me, it sure feels like the latter. Apple spending $20 billion to pick up all this prestige TV and Film, is kind of a great deal, when compared to say, the $43 billion Discovery just paid for Warner, just to kill half of it (and then lose another $7 billon on it over the past 2-3 years)

PaulHoule 2y ago

Something that seems strange to me is the deal they made with MLS which I don’t think was great for MLS. Today MLS has the problem that people think “American soccer sucks” and won’t give it a chance. I caught a game in person because I was interested in the state of American soccer and between the game and the fan experience I had a great time. A sport that has room to grow has to be easy for people to catch a game who aren’t committed to subscribing to it. They can win people over if they can catch an occasional game for free but if it is behind a paywall 100% of the time it’s going to stay obscure. NBC runs a free Premier League game every Saturday and if you want more you can get it as part of a reasonably priced Peacock subscriptions. The deal Apple has with MLS might be a good deal for Apple but I don’t think it’s good for the sport.

darknavi 2y ago
> The deal Apple has with MLS might be a good deal for Apple but I don’t think it’s good for the sport. Did you try to stream it before Apple got the rights to MLS games? About 10 years ago MLS had an all-in-one streaming platform called MLS LIVE. Minor local blackouts, but other than that its the one stop shop. Then they shut that down and you have to follow a flow chart on how to watch anything. Is the game "local"? Are you "local"? Is it a "big" game that is streamed nationally? What does the magic 8 ball say for which local station has the rights to the broadcast? ESPN+ had some of the games but no where near all. Pirating the game was about 10x easier, as you just time in "free MLS stream". Apple TV is a single place to watch the games. No blackouts. No ouija board to figure out how to watch it. So much easier than pirating, the quality is good, and I can watch it where ever I want. Whether or not the deal was good for the MLS organization monetarily, I have no idea. But for consumers it has been really great in my opinion.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

righthand 2y ago

Every company that jumped into streaming has this issue and was warned about this from the start. Even Netflix struggles from this, the simple solution is to stop billing top tier workers and lower quality. This is how you get a Frasier reboot in jeans. Also extra funny for Apple as their projected attitude is that they are always top tier with unlimited funds.

wkat4242 2y ago

Hmm the only thing I really thought was worth watching was for all mankind. And they've kinda painted themselves into a corner (as the show runners said, there's only so much you can do to age the characters) It was a decent show though. But it wouldn't make me subscribe. That would take a lot more.

cgriswald 2y ago
Severance was good, but three years between seasons is too long.

cbsmith 2y ago

This seems like an odd spin/reeks of PR and politics more than the reality. $20B spend is just fine if you have the revenue to justify it. They've just struggled with the revenue. Killers of the Flower Moon brought in $157 million at the box office --that's without streaming revenue, but I think even that would still be considered a failure... and some of the others have been huge stinkers.

whoisjuan 2y ago
AppleTV+ is a tiny business. It's nowhere near of generating enough revenue to cover a $20B hole in content production costs. Yes, Apple generates LOTS of revenue overall, but that doesn't justify bleeding cash on a business line that hasn't produced material returns and has no significant positive trajectory in sight. It's clear that Apple saw this as their Prime Video bet on their services strategy, but that hasn't worked out. Just look at AppleTV+ market share. It's hilariously miniscule.
- alemanek 2y ago
  Apple can afford to play the long game here though. TV+ is nice value add on their bundled subscription package so may be driving more people to opt for that. I know it was a major factor in my decision and now I am playing Apple Arcade games and use Apple Music as my primary music service. Operating TV+ as a halo or loss leader product to get people to try other services within the ecosystem could be a winning strategy for them. Also likely drives some hardware sales.
  - whywhywhywhy 2y ago
    In what world does Apple need a “loss leader” to “drive hardware sales”. They have some of the highest sales for high value products in the world. What the goal of this was obviously to scoop $10 more cream a month from a % of those huge sales numbers. “Loss Leader” theory makes no sense next to Apples financial and sales reality.
    - 2y ago

stuppalupp 2y ago

How about letting Android users watch your shows?

buildbot 2y ago
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/Apple_TV?id=com.apple.atve.sony.appletv&hl=en_ZA https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/Apple_TV?id=com.a...
- prpl 2y ago
  Also there's a FireTV app (and has been for years)
- protastus 2y ago
  "This app is not available for your device" I have a Pixel 6.
  - buildbot 2y ago
    https://tv.apple.com/ https://tv.apple.com/ You can watch online then
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Apple only offers an “Apple TV” app in the Play Store for streaming devices and television sets powered by Android/Google TV. There is no mobile app for phones and tablets. Those with mobile Android devices and Chromebooks are officially told to use tv.apple.com. https://9to5google.com/2024/03/03/apple-tv-android-app/ https://9to5google.com/2024/03/03/apple-tv-android-app/
elAhmo 2y ago
The purpose of Apple TV+ is to lock you down in iPhone/Apple ecosystem, even if they are losing the money on the service itself. So, good luck with that.
- tiltowait 2y ago

_fat_santa 2y ago

The entire steaming sector has become unsustainable. On the one hand, for a service to be successful in the space they have to dump millions if not billions of dollars towards developing content. The problem is that with so many streaming platforms doing the same thing dilutes the value of that content and makes it unsustainable.

e40 2y ago
Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle's Netflix deals make that point more than anything I've seen. Rock got $20M each for 2 specials. I think Dave has made that (or more) for a bunch of specials.
WillPostForFood 2y ago
Netflix is doing OK. Their stock price might be wildly inflated, but they have been able to show profits since 2003.
Fripplebubby 2y ago
I think you are painting with a very broad brush. In general Wall St keeps very close tabs on every big streamer and is pushing them all to be profitable yesterday. There was a time when investors were happy to subsidize customer acquisition, but that time is over and I think you haven't updated your outlook. That said, there is still some room to run.
jerlam 2y ago
There's also so much good existing content across all the streaming services that a typical adult with a job and responsibilities has enough to watch right now for the next several years, without watching anything "new". When I had a mail-by-DVD Netflix account, I don't think my queue ever dropped below 20. I have a sizeable watchlist / saved list on every streaming service I have used, and it also never goes down to zero.
- somedude895 2y ago
  Same with all media to be honest. Literature, videogames, music. There's been an uncountable number of masterworks over the past decades and you could fill a whole lifetime with incredible content. We're drowning in slop and we don't need the floodgates fully open for another decade to find the occasional nugget.

dawnerd 2y ago

Does it have to be a money maker if it’s doing its job in bringing more value to the Apple ecosystem? I see it as more of a marketing budget.

afavour 2y ago
It certainly _could_ be a loss leader but I can't think of a single instance I've heard where someone switched to an iPhone/Apple TV because of an Apple TV show they wanted to watch. (wouldn't even make sense to, they have an Android app)
- christkv 2y ago
  It’s just part of the apple one family plan i have so an added bonus
- philistine 2y ago
  They don't just have an Android app, they have an app everywhere. Apple TV+ is as ubiquitous as Netflix at this point. Hell, they have an Xbox app! How minuscule is the confluence of I have an Xbox, and I pay for Apple TV+, but I don't have an Apple TV device. I'm wondering if at some point Apple doesn't look at how much engineering effort goes into all those useless apps for a service that is bleeding money and decides to reassign the workforce. Money is basically infinite for Apple, but good engineers are its most valuable resource.
- swores 2y ago
  It doesn't necessarily have to lead to any specific "I'm buying an Apple device because of Apple TV+" to be positive ROI marketing, the same way not all adverts have to be aimed at direct conversion to be useful. Just getting Android users to have a daily reminder of "Apple makes something that is high quality and I enjoy" could be enough to influence future purchasing decisions even if those people wouldn't explicitly consider their enjoyment of Apple TV+ to be the reason they eventually bought an Apple device. (I have no reason to specifically believe that Apple TV+ is ROI-positive in this way, just pointing out that non-conversion brand awareness marketing is a huge part of the marketing world, with often very positive results.)

afavour 2y ago

It's a shame because Apple TV is producing some wonderful sci-fi right now, arguably they're about the only ones doing it to this level. And I'm sure it'll be first on the chopping block while the inflated budgets for the star-studded Morning Show are more likely to be maintained. I hope I'm wrong and that Apple sees value in producing wonderful, niche TV. But at the same time that's not really Apple's ethos.

e40 2y ago
Dark Matter was really good. I hope there's a season 2.
whalesalad 2y ago
Severance was outstanding. Next season coming 2025, fingers crossed.
nerdjon 2y ago
It does feel like Apple TV has gained a reputation for science fiction (and just generally nerdy things), there are multiple articles out there on it. Putting out the type of content we used to expect from HBO. So my hope would be they would realize that, lean into it, and cut their other experiments or just not do movies as much. I know for me anytime I see a new science fiction show on Apple TV I feel like it is at least worth checking out the first couple episodes, and I have not been upset yet.
josteink 2y ago
[flagged]
- dewey 2y ago
  I've watched many Apple TV+ shows and this never occurred to me. Confirmation bias on your end?
  - josteink 2y ago
    [flagged]

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

Am I singularly cursed or is Apple TV the worst quality platform? On a Roku, I routinely run into numerous glitches. Controls do not show, show will not start, show will die after a few minutes, will get stuck in a loop where it repeats a 10 second clip, etc. Coincidentally, my free trial ends tomorrow, and I will not be renewing.

e40 2y ago
What are you watching on? I have an Apple TV 4k and it's the best experience I've ever seen. I had Roku's for a long time and just got tired of them (bad performance, glitches).
solardev 2y ago
It might be the Roku? Works fine for me on Chromecast with TV, and also previously on my Apple TV.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tzs 2y ago
It was fine on my 1st generation Amazon Fire TV 4K. That's nearly 6 year old hardware.
toast0 2y ago
I had a pretty similar experience with Apple TV+ on my Roku; so you're not alone. Maybe their player app is better on their platform or other non Roku platforms, but I'm not likely to look.
jwells89 2y ago
I've read that Apple TV+'s higher than average bitrate can cause a lot of streaming boxes to struggle, not sure if that's what's happening here though. It's been solid for me, to the point that I subscribe to other services through the built-in channels feature in order to be able to avoid generally worse streaming apps (like Paramount+) but I always watch using Apple stuff.
para_parolu 2y ago

scarface_74 2y ago

Ballmer was quoted in the Acquired podcast about his failed acquisitions “all we lost is money”. Apple can sustain the revenue loss as long as it has to stomach to do so and as long as it can justify it for other business reasons - like maybe making the bundle more attractive.

geodel 2y ago
They can. But I think news articles are claiming Apple is looking to control cost and reduce losses.
talldayo 2y ago
[flagged]
- pvg 2y ago
  Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

crazygringo 2y ago

To be clear, because the article isn't obvious about it: the $20B figure is total expenditure since its inception, not a yearly figure. For comparison, Netflix spent $17B in 2022, and $13B in 2023 (it was lower due to strikes). Disney spent $33B on content in 2022. Meanwhile, Apple spent $7B in 2022. (All numbers from Google top results). So Apple's still spending significantly less than main "competitors", of course. It's extremely weird for an article to give an all-time spending figure and then call it "unsustainable", when obviously sustainability depends entirely on spending per year compared with revenue per year, and this article doesn't even talk about the revenue side at all (Apple TV+ costs $9.99/mo. standalone.) It's also hard to define "sustainability" when it's not even clear that Apple's goal is to make a profit directly, but may be to take a loss that is less than the perceived marketing value that this adds to the Apple aura/brand. EDIT: my comment is referring to the original URL for this post which was https://wccftech.com/apple-tv-expenditure-crossed-20-billion/ https://wccftech.com/apple-tv-expenditure-crossed-20-billion... , not the Bloomberg article which the URL has since been changed to

joe_the_user 2y ago
Yeah, the opaqueness of the profits and losses of Hollywood's production process have been infamous since Mel Brooks' The Producers - in 1967. A few stars, directors, producers or etc can determine the success of a production when there's full competition - maybe, everything is uncertain. The gist of the discussion is that Neflix is will to pay less by virtue of having become such a monopoly it can just dictate the winners. But as the parent says, what's happening with Apple is likely much more opaque.
toast0 2y ago
> this article doesn't even talk about the revenue side at all (Apple TV+ costs $9.99/mo. standalone.) Apple TV+ isn't the only way to monetize the projects either. One hopes at least some of these will come out on disc, and many of them are likely to show up on other streaming and perhaps even broadcast. Media has a long tail of revenue, although it's often unclear who has rights to that revenue.
- 2y ago

Argonaut998 2y ago

They just don’t advertise their shows, at least where I live.

Jcowell 2y ago

I have three major gripes with Apple TV (plus and otherwise) 1. The website is ass. i’ve attempted nervous times to sign into my gaming PC before giving up and using my Apple device. Great for my Apple device but ass if I ever want to watch it on my gaming PC , meaning i’m consuming less media on it. This makes it uniquely terrible for its other goal of folks purchasing their media on there since it’s linked with Apple TV. Idiotic for a streaming service. 2. There’s no consistent release of shows to watch all year round. Netflix imo is the only services that releases stuff every month. for other services this is no issue since they have a backlog of content for consumers to consume but Apple TV+ does not have this pleasure imo. for a service that relies on subscriptions for its revenue, it’s the worst to plead for its case. 3. No watch history. Whenever I hear a new show recommendation I immediately open the tv app and add it to my up next. The Tv’s app’s ability to connect to various streaming serves makes it the nexus for most media. Why the hell does it not support the opposing feature of saving the history of what just watched? It should be so easy for it to add on a Letterboxd like feature from there.

yardie 2y ago

I really enjoy the programming on Apple TV+. I've also never paid for it. Through various promotions and bundles I've had it continuously for 5 years $0 spent on it. Just purchasing Apple products over time I racked up 3-12 month free offers and now its bundled in my internet package. They are also doing that traditional HBO thing where they get AAA movies for a limited time and then poof. I'm hoping they continue to update the UI to make it easier to find new shows and viewing history.

Suppafly 2y ago

Maybe it's my subjective preferences, but honestly Apple TV+ kinda sucks content-wise. Also, the experience is subpar. It regularly forces you to relogin, but instead of just saying so, shows that you're logged in but all of the actual content looks like you're not logged in until you login again, and then you have to do 2-factor and re-acknowledge that all your info is correct and then go back to the apple tv+ site and login again. Maybe the experience is better if you're using apple products?

neonate 2y ago

https://archive.ph/9cNmK https://archive.ph/9cNmK