3 ms·

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

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.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Many of the movies e.g. Killers of the Flower Moon have theatrical releases. It needs to for Oscar contention though but I am sure some money can be made.
geodel 2y ago
Apple TV+ has 0.2% of US TV views compared to 8% of Netflix. So Apple's monthly viewership is less than a day views of Netflix. In that context 20 billions is big amount. Streaming fatigue is real. All streaming services are feeling this. And that's why so much of HBO content re-appearing on Netflix. Disney, Paramount will follow suit in search for money. > when it's not even clear that Apple's goal is to make a profit directly, I mean that sounds like calling We can't make money as `We don't want to make money*
- paul7986 2y ago
  Personally ive canceled all streaming svc (in 2023) and just watch youtube and FB reels. I think that's where it's all going and soon Hollywood will continue to increase the amount of content on youtube (have it all there) possibly break their shows into short form content or create short form content tv shows and movies. I have trouble watching long form content alone. It now has to be a social endeavor for myself to watch it one sitting.
  - geodel 2y ago
    Seems like lot of people are heading in same direction (content fatigue) even if for different reasons. I have 3-4 streaming services + cable but I am not watching much.
  - arresin 2y ago
    Interesting. I had the same thought recently. It seems so weird that I used to sit there for 30mins to an hour. And sometimes a lot more. I see family members doing it and it’s weird to me now.
- Yeul 2y ago
  Netflix was pretty much allowed to run uncontested for years. When the industry finally figured out Netflix was eating their lunch it was too late to catch up.
  - whywhywhywhy 2y ago
ksec 2y ago
The recent estimate of Apple TV+ paid subscriber is 25M from 2022, with additional 50M on trial from other promotions. Let say we have 30M now, at $10 a month, this is at best $3.6B per year. Considering Apple didn't charge anything for the first 20 months, and the initial price was $4.99, $6.99 by October 2022 before coming to $9.99. And that is excluding yearly discount from subscriber, iTunes Account Top Up Credit discount etc. I dont think Apple would have $10B of Apple TV+ revenue since its inception. i.e Apple is now at a loss of $10B in total excluding the encoding and delivery expenses which I expect to be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. >sustainability.......but may be to take a loss I dont record any single feature or product that Apple provides and uses a loss leader. You may get freemium type of services that is iCloud but even that is accounted for in their book in every single Apple products sales. Their culture has always been paid for the product or services. It is very rarely a loss. But I have been saying for now close to a decade the whole point of Apple Music, Apple TV+ etc were to increase their Services Revenue while diluting down their Services Profits margin since a lot of these Services are razor thin margin, but for App Store and Google Search placement are both at 90%+ Gross. By combining them together and bundling these products as Apple One they have managed to substantially increase their subscription base to 1 billion+. The only problem is both Google Search Placement deal and App Store revenue are under heavy attack and scrutiny by officials and politicians.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > I dont record any single feature or product that Apple provides and uses a loss leader. Sure, I think Apple TV+ might be their only product like this. In a lot of business analysis of streamers, Apple and Amazon are the two that are widely believed they won't get shut down (or sold/merged) even if they never make a profit at all -- because of the marketing value to Apple, and the Prime stickiness value for Amazon. So just because Apple has never done it before, doesn't mean they aren't doing it now. Apple TV+ is unique in a lot of ways for Apple. The rest of Services, and Apple TV+, seem to have such different business models that it doesn't make a lot of sense to combine them when analyzing Apple's strategies (even if they are combined in quarterly reports).
- hmottestad 2y ago
  The free 5GB of cloud storage must be considered a loss leader. It’s essential 5GB for free for the lifetime of your device, which can easily be 10-15 years when you consider secondhand devices.

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.

threeseed 2y ago
Many of the movies e.g. Killers of the Flower Moon have theatrical releases. It needs to for Oscar contention though but I am sure some money can be made.

geodel 2y ago

Apple TV+ has 0.2% of US TV views compared to 8% of Netflix. So Apple's monthly viewership is less than a day views of Netflix. In that context 20 billions is big amount. Streaming fatigue is real. All streaming services are feeling this. And that's why so much of HBO content re-appearing on Netflix. Disney, Paramount will follow suit in search for money. > when it's not even clear that Apple's goal is to make a profit directly, I mean that sounds like calling We can't make money as `We don't want to make money*

paul7986 2y ago
Personally ive canceled all streaming svc (in 2023) and just watch youtube and FB reels. I think that's where it's all going and soon Hollywood will continue to increase the amount of content on youtube (have it all there) possibly break their shows into short form content or create short form content tv shows and movies. I have trouble watching long form content alone. It now has to be a social endeavor for myself to watch it one sitting.
- geodel 2y ago
  Seems like lot of people are heading in same direction (content fatigue) even if for different reasons. I have 3-4 streaming services + cable but I am not watching much.
- arresin 2y ago
  Interesting. I had the same thought recently. It seems so weird that I used to sit there for 30mins to an hour. And sometimes a lot more. I see family members doing it and it’s weird to me now.
Yeul 2y ago
Netflix was pretty much allowed to run uncontested for years. When the industry finally figured out Netflix was eating their lunch it was too late to catch up.
- whywhywhywhy 2y ago

ksec 2y ago

The recent estimate of Apple TV+ paid subscriber is 25M from 2022, with additional 50M on trial from other promotions. Let say we have 30M now, at $10 a month, this is at best $3.6B per year. Considering Apple didn't charge anything for the first 20 months, and the initial price was $4.99, $6.99 by October 2022 before coming to $9.99. And that is excluding yearly discount from subscriber, iTunes Account Top Up Credit discount etc. I dont think Apple would have $10B of Apple TV+ revenue since its inception. i.e Apple is now at a loss of $10B in total excluding the encoding and delivery expenses which I expect to be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. >sustainability.......but may be to take a loss I dont record any single feature or product that Apple provides and uses a loss leader. You may get freemium type of services that is iCloud but even that is accounted for in their book in every single Apple products sales. Their culture has always been paid for the product or services. It is very rarely a loss. But I have been saying for now close to a decade the whole point of Apple Music, Apple TV+ etc were to increase their Services Revenue while diluting down their Services Profits margin since a lot of these Services are razor thin margin, but for App Store and Google Search placement are both at 90%+ Gross. By combining them together and bundling these products as Apple One they have managed to substantially increase their subscription base to 1 billion+. The only problem is both Google Search Placement deal and App Store revenue are under heavy attack and scrutiny by officials and politicians.

crazygringo 2y ago
> I dont record any single feature or product that Apple provides and uses a loss leader. Sure, I think Apple TV+ might be their only product like this. In a lot of business analysis of streamers, Apple and Amazon are the two that are widely believed they won't get shut down (or sold/merged) even if they never make a profit at all -- because of the marketing value to Apple, and the Prime stickiness value for Amazon. So just because Apple has never done it before, doesn't mean they aren't doing it now. Apple TV+ is unique in a lot of ways for Apple. The rest of Services, and Apple TV+, seem to have such different business models that it doesn't make a lot of sense to combine them when analyzing Apple's strategies (even if they are combined in quarterly reports).
hmottestad 2y ago
The free 5GB of cloud storage must be considered a loss leader. It’s essential 5GB for free for the lifetime of your device, which can easily be 10-15 years when you consider secondhand devices.