4 ms·
Unlike other streaming networks, Apple TV has a lot of backing from leadership to remain prestige and passion driven, as it's a good loss leader and brand make
by alephnerd 2y ago
Unlike other streaming networks, Apple TV has a lot of backing from leadership to remain prestige and passion driven, as it's a good loss leader and brand maker for Apple.
For example, look at the zeitgeist Ted Lasso, Severance, Tehran, and Pachinko have all been able to leverage.
- mpalmer 2y agoAnd Apple could lose a billion a year for decades if it wanted to.
- alephnerd 2y agoYep! They probably don't want to and most likely have a plan on better monetizing Apple TV, in the short term the brand making aspect is well worth it for a brand like Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple TV ends up acquiring a prestige production house at some point, or uses Apple TV to enhance other marketing partnerships with adjacent brands. Their foray into sports with MLS is a good example
- nxobject 2y ago> I wouldn't be surprised if Apple TV ends up acquiring a prestige production house at some point I agree, AND I’m similarly asking why I agree myself: there were always persistent rumors under Steve that Apple would one day acquire Disney, they were always fun to think about in a “what if” way, _and_ it seems hilariously impractical in retrospect.
- alephnerd 2y agoAlternatively - and now that I'm thinking about it - I think Apple TV might adopt the A/24 model of purchasing individual movies and shows that they like, and marketing it like crazy. In fact, that does seem to be Apple TV's model already. For example, Ted Lasso, Mythic Quest, Pachinko, Foundation, Silo, Severance, The Studio, and For All Mankind are all produced by entirely different production houses but licensing for them was acquired by Apple.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThere is some crazy stat that apple could stop selling everything they make and still run operations for another 25 years or something wild like that.
- DrJokepu 2y agoAmazon MGM is like that too
- lolinder 2y ago> as it's a good loss leader Brand maker is hard to argue with because it's so vague, but how does Apple TV function as a loss leader? Isn't the idea of a loss leader that it's supposed to help sell whatever actually makes money? How does Apple TV sell hardware for Apple? The only person I know with a subscription has an Android phone and Windows laptop and signed up just long enough to watch Severance.
- lokar 2y agoThey don’t really need more customers, they just need to keep the ones they have
- lolinder 2y agoWhat is Apple TV doing to accomplish that goal, though? Are you saying there are some fraction of Apple customers who would switch to Android or Windows if Apple didn't have a streaming service?
- aegypti 2y agoDo you know many families? I can’t really think of one in my bubble without an Apple One subscription at this point except for the Spotify holdouts. Bundling the new HBO with Apple Music has got to be very easy to sell. Apple TV 4K boxes also stream TV+ at a much higher bit rate than any other service but that’s a bit enthusiast.
- freddie_mercury 2y agoI don't know a single person in my country with an Apple One subscription. That's 100 million people right there.
- aegypti 2y agoI don’t know if your country has very many upper middle class WEIRD families entirely embedded into the Apple ecosystem, but it’s become noticeably more common here post Ted Lasso era I think.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- massysett 2y agoOk, what exactly does this zeitgeist leveraging get for Apple? Not brand recognition, the brand is well known. Is it some goodwill with…who exactly? For instance I can see why big corps underwrite public television programs. The audience says “That’s a good company,” and the company talks up its community investment anytime it can. What is Apple getting for the billion it is spending on TV? Maybe the CEO gets to rub elbows with Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon? I’m not seeing what that does for the company, but seriously, sometimes that kind of ego nonsense drives decisions.
- infosample 2y agoLosing $1 billion distracts from the many billions they get from 30% App Store fees.
- musicale 2y agoFortunately we also have Android with its many high-quality app store alternatives[1] like the Amazon Appstore, and Google Play's low platform fees[2]. [1] https://www.androidauthority.com/best-app-stores-936652/ https://www.androidauthority.com/best-app-stores-936652/ [2] https://sharpsheets.io/blog/app-store-and-google-play-commissions-fees/ https://sharpsheets.io/blog/app-store-and-google-play-commis...
- nxobject 2y agoIn addition to infosample's comment, it also gives Apple a presence in the news that's unambiguously positive over, say, the AI company du jour. (After all, Apple's financials won't tell you about flops.)
- freddie_mercury 2y agoIsn't that mostly just a function of it being newer? All the other streaming services focused on being prestige loss leaders in their early years too. Apple TV+ started in 2019. Hulu and Netflix streaming in 2007. HBO Go in 2010. Etc.
- alephnerd 2y agoUnlike the other players (except Amazon), Apple is not primarily a streaming company, so it makes it easier to bundle streaming as a loss leader while leaving open the option to do a tuck-in acquisition of high value IP if the opportunity arises (eg. MLS games).
- ksec 2y ago>it's a good loss leader And that is problem. Old era Apple dont do Loss leaders. Apple TV+, or the services strategy involving News+, Fitness+, Arcade, Music etc are fundamentally different to old / Steve Job's Apple. All of them were created hoping it is valuable enough so you could subscribe to Apple or "Apple One" in a bid to hide and leverage the $30B raw profits from Google Search and App Store. Steve once said IIRC in D9, you create a great product, then you figure out the go to market strategy. Right now Apple is the other way around, at least for Services, they figure out the strategy, and then think about what product should go in that strategy.