r/movies • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 r/Movies contributor • 15d ago
News Apple Losing Over $1 Billion a Year on Streaming Service
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-losing-over-1-billion-year-streaming-service-information-reports-2025-03-20/4.8k
u/Jim777PS3 15d ago
Are we sure that is not the point?
Loss leading to build up a customer base only to hike prices on them is the most common tactic in Tech and has been for a long time.
1.3k
u/generalright 15d ago
They also can earn money off future views once current programs are completed. An investment so to speak.
381
u/Agreeable_Band_9311 15d ago
A company as enormous as Apple also needs to throw money at new things. They had $65 billion in cash at the end of 2024.
They can easily afford this loss and need to keep reinvesting that cash to grow or else return profits to shareholders via dividends and buy backs.
→ More replies (2)137
u/ThePrussianGrippe 15d ago
Apple is famous for how much cash on hand they keep, I’m sure all of this was within their plans.
→ More replies (2)80
u/Agreeable_Band_9311 15d ago
Yeah I haven’t looked in years but was surprised it was that low. It’s been over $200 billion before which raised concerns because it indicated they didn’t have good R&D ideas to dump it into.
55
u/ThePrussianGrippe 15d ago
It wasn’t that bad. I remember when that was reported. 10% of it was liquid in their ‘bank account’ and the rest of the 200b was in short and long term investment securities.
Still, they’re very rigorous on keeping a good chunk on hand. I imagine it’s corporate policy created after their disasters in the 90’s when they almost tanked.
→ More replies (1)19
u/CelestialFury 15d ago
I imagine it’s corporate policy created after their disasters in the 90’s when they almost tanked.
Yeah, I don't think many younger folks know how bad it was in the 90s for Apple. Jobs and Cook absolutely saved them from disaster.
→ More replies (4)8
u/defylife 15d ago
They didn't used to pay dividends, so that allowed them to stockpile a ton of cash too.
→ More replies (2)664
u/bugcatcher_billy 15d ago
It's not like this content goes away. Apple owns it forever. They are building a catalog. Lose 1 billion for 10 years but now you have the best catalog of TV shows and movies on any streaming service. Hell, they could probably sell the rights for 1 year for S1 of popular shows like Ted Lasso.
Netflix gets S1 of Ted Lasso for a cool 10 million.
349
u/3-DMan 15d ago
Hopefully they keep the catalog. After seeing Max and Disney erase their own shows, I don't trust any of em really.
376
u/B-Kong 15d ago
HBO deleting Westworld in its entirety is blasphemy.
77
u/Etheo 15d ago
Wow really? What prompted that move? That's insane, S1 was some of my favourite TV. S2 even maybe.
79
u/aidanpryde98 15d ago
They didnt want to pay royalties.
→ More replies (4)40
u/flux8 15d ago
Did they not own the show? This TV show ownership thing gets confusing for lay people.
86
u/ksj 15d ago
They did, but they still have to pay royalties to the creators. The producers and directors and main actors all get residuals when people watch the show. If nobody can watch the show, they don’t have to pay those residuals.
→ More replies (2)9
u/gambalore 15d ago
Streaming residuals under the old union contracts (before the most recent strikes) were structured in a way where the payouts were based on the size of the streaming service, not on the actual viewership. That had the unfortunate effect of incentivizing the streamers to take low-viewership shows off of their platforms, even if the residual payouts were pretty paltry. WB also pivoted to licensing some of the less popular series out to other services, like Tubi, to raise more money.
20
u/CliffordMoreau 15d ago
There are like a dozen different types of residuals people in the industry can qualify for (syndication, cable, ads, discs, streaming, etc).
For the really popular shows, like Friends, which still has strong DVD sales to this day, can net each Friends main cast actor a solid mil yearly.
Streaming is more cutthroat, the residuals are worse and the method used to calculate payments is faulty on purpose.
When a show is riskier to make, the studio may forgo large up front payments to cast and crew in exchange for points (residuals).
Westworld was a gamble, and probably earns the cast and writers/directors/producers a pretty penny, which is only going to become a bigger number since the recent strike ensured that streaming residuals give bonuses to 'popular' shows.
34
u/B-Kong 15d ago
Its ratings went down pretty drastically after season 2. I personally enjoyed it but I just love the whole show. I can understand why people didn’t like seasons 3 and 4. The unfortunate part though is that the anticipated season 5 would have completed the story and made seasons 3 and 4 make more sense and be more relevant. HBO didn’t give the creators the chance to finish the story though.
→ More replies (11)12
u/swisspassport 15d ago
The short answer is removing Westworld from HBO/MAX was a "cost-cutting measure" allowing Warner/Discovery to license it (and other HBO shows) to FAST streaming (Free Ad Supported sTreaming) platforms like Tubi and Roku Channel.
The long answer is AT&T sold "Warner Media" and all its subsidiaries - HBO included - to Discovery Entertainment for $43 Billion, with the Discovery group heading the new merged "Warner Bros Discovery".
The CEO of Discovery, David Zaslav, is a pretty smart businessman but he's made a few head-scratching decisions. Almost like he doesn't value entertainment as art, but rather sees it ALL as a commodity to profit from. We can't have people like him running media companies.
What actually happens in those "cost cutting measures" is that the corporation (Warner Bros Discovery, which owns HBO and all of it's assets, content, etc) just pulls the show(s) from their liabilities column on the balance sheet and moves it over to the asset column. This is simplistic, but essentially they do not air the show anymore, ever, which means they no longer have to pay actors, writers, crew, whomever - any Re$iduals.
This is known widely throughout the industry as "A Dick Move".
Instead of paying the residuals and royalties that the cast & crew originally agreed to in order to make 1 and a half seasons of an interesting TV show, they just give them the finger instead, make money from licensing it to shitty free streamers, and restructure whatever royalties need to be paid so all they see is some amount of profit where that equals licensing fees minus royalties.
→ More replies (2)9
u/bw541 15d ago
I hate that HBO does this. There was show that came out back during the pandemic called Run. It only lasted 7 or 8 episodes. I was trying to go back and find them but there are nowhere to be found on Max or even to purchase.
→ More replies (2)122
u/Malphos101 15d ago
Nothing is ever truly gone. Yo-ho-ho is the way to go
→ More replies (1)125
u/ColorsLikeSPACESHIPS 15d ago
That's misleading. Plenty of stuff is currently unobtainable to potential new viewers even though pirate sites are incentivized to obtain and archive them. Just because Joe Schmoe has an old 8mm copy in his storage unit doesn't mean it's been uploaded; it still has to get into the hands of uploaders, and then needs to be available.
I'm not disagreeing with your ultimate point, but just saying, lost media continues to be an ongoing issue, and just because we have better tools to try and prevent loss doesn't actually mean nothing gets lost.
29
u/Isolated_Hippo 15d ago
Allegedly my old boss was an archiver. He would take old shows and upload them to those vetted members only sites. He was damn near giddy when I gave him my grandfather's old VHS collection.
It was a good trade too cause he gave me access to his plex server. Allegedly.
18
u/ColorsLikeSPACESHIPS 15d ago
A lot of people are on those sites just as much for the sense of community as the media, so he very likely got some social benefit in addition to ratio and upload stat benefit. Theoretically.
22
u/Isolated_Hippo 15d ago
Allegedly he totally did. He had no capability to move VHS to digital forms but I gave him probably 300 movies so he invested in the equipment.
It's actually kind of wholesome to know that some D tier scifi movie is somewhat forever out there because of me and my grandpa. Allegedly
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (13)40
u/CharlieTeller 15d ago
This is why it's best to own EVERYTHING you can. I stopped buying into this streaming service nonsense this year and it feels much better mentally to own all of my favorites.
There's something happening in the brain that makes it more enjoyable to watch/listen to things you own.
18
u/ColorsLikeSPACESHIPS 15d ago
I just host things on my own media server, but yes, functionally the same thing; I don't have some license that could be arbitrarily revoked.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)14
→ More replies (26)24
9
7
→ More replies (13)7
u/mountainstosea 15d ago
I know you can buy Ted Lasso on Blu-Ray, and own it forever. Not sure about Apple’s other shows.
→ More replies (52)5
32
4
→ More replies (8)9
u/Dazd_cnfsd 15d ago
Apple Pay’s more up front when they make a show/movie and completely own the product and do not need to pay residual
It definitely is a long term plan and will cost way more up front
That being said Apple TV is so good and I am so glad they got into the market
38
u/nufandan 15d ago
Loss leading to build up a customer base only to hike prices on them is the most common tactic in Tech and has been for a long time.
thats a model for start ups, we're talking about Apple here. $1B is a small portion of their reported cash on hand, so they have plenty of time to build the catalog while trying to win subscribers.
Stand alone streaming services have much shorter runway than Apple or Amazon Prime who are not solely reliant on their streaming services
→ More replies (1)6
u/donkeyrocket 15d ago
One billion is also just over 1% of their net income in recent years. They can absolutely afford to spend a billion a year on streaming and not feel the impacts at all. Doubly so if it is driving revenue in any other facet.
160
u/CanisMajoris85 15d ago
Gee, who ever would do such a thing? Certainly not Netflix, Disney, Hulu, Paramount, Peacock, Starz, Max or anyone else.
→ More replies (3)77
u/cookedart 15d ago
Netflix is the odd one out here as they are actually profitable. All the others are funneling money in just like Apple is.
58
u/CanisMajoris85 15d ago
Netflix is further along in the process, yes.
It's just funny how often the others have to do like $1-3/month type deals which is the only reason I have some of them at times. Been paying $3 for Disney+Hulu for like the past 2 years and then Peacock $20/year so under $2/month. Also Starz when we need it for like $1-3/month sometimes.
→ More replies (2)14
u/DJanomaly 15d ago
Disney Plus is actually profitable now too. But your point still stands.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (13)7
50
u/sweetplantveal 15d ago
They also get benefits to their brand, ecosystem, and taxes.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Jim777PS3 15d ago
This is true, Apple may never seek to make a huge profit on their streaming arm if it is enough of a boon to their hardware arm. They may be just fine with a thinner loss or breaking near even.
12
u/NetflixAndNikah 15d ago
The Apple ecosystem is a multi headed hydra with each head widening its gaping maw at us consumers. And I’m just throwing myself in it like 🤸♂️
10
u/reno2mahesendejo 15d ago
Its also just the way Apple does business. They don't care about losing money on hardware or one specific service, their entire business is creating a gateway into their ecosystem as a whole where they have much more profitable services
9
u/Rippper600 15d ago
Sort of. Apple uses their music and tv streaming services as free promotions for 3 or 6 months depending what device you buy. Maybe to sway consumers into picking a ipad vs a surface.
12
u/LeTrollSprewell 15d ago
It's also a good way to crush any upstart competitors who can't afford to take those kinds of losses.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (82)21
u/Nice_Marmot_7 15d ago
They have 65 billion cash on hand. That could certainly be viable.
11
u/realshockin 15d ago
What will they do in 65 years if they don’t make any more profit tough?
→ More replies (5)
409
u/Over_Eagle_4013 15d ago
More than likely that MLS deal is absorbing a lot of that revenue that could be coming in. They were in talks to get college football along with more concert documentaries, and it seems they’ve already backpedaled on both.
126
u/KozyHank99 15d ago
They were planning on getting the rights to air the Pac-12 for college football. Unfortunately, almost every school in the conference said no and immediately made their decision to leave for either the Big Ten, Big 12, or the ACC.
103
u/BucketsMcAlister 15d ago
Nothing screams out Atlantic Coast Conference like two schools on California.
57
4
32
u/mountainstosea 15d ago
Stanford and Cal choosing to send their tennis and volleyball teams to the east coast instead of signing with Apple TV+ was certainly a choice.
→ More replies (2)27
u/PaulThePM 15d ago
Given the tv rights deals the ACC has versus what Apple was offering the Pac12, its certainly more profitable, and who cares about the “student athletes” when we can make some more cash?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Over_Eagle_4013 15d ago
It was mainly the price point of the rights offer that the bigger PAC-12 schools scoffed at. Not realizing the alternative was not having your conference streamed on anything. So they panicked, and the bigger schools went with the much higher payout. Apple’s deal was around $23 million per school. Oregon, Washington, UCLA, USC are getting $30 million a year for the first six years in the Big Ten. All was dependent on if Apple TV could get at least more subscriptions, the payout would increase, but you’re locked into a 5 year deal.
31
u/CynicClinic1 15d ago
MLS is kind of a bubble. It's grown but not fast enough, it's price is likely overvalued in terms of sports IP.
29
u/SleazieSpleezie 15d ago
The entire league being stuck behind a $90 paywall has noticeably slowed growth of the MLS.
→ More replies (17)5
u/FrostyD7 15d ago
They are definitely using sports to draw in customers that would otherwise never even consider them. I know quite a few people who subscribe and are very happy with their non-sport offerings but would have never considered signing up just for that.
15
u/Ok_Astronomer_8667 15d ago
Such a weird deal from the MLS perspective to me. I hardly know that many people that watch MLS, and I know even less people that have an AppleTV account
12
u/MtRainierWolfcastle 15d ago
Season ticket holders get free MLS Pass too so customers that would be interested in the product get it for free.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Over_Eagle_4013 15d ago
They’re truly trying to invest in the growth of MLS. Issue is you need more suitable ownership that’ll reciprocate the investment. Not just a streaming giant.
8
u/usctrojan18 15d ago
I think securing the MLS for the next 10 year was a great move though. Allowing Apple to get experience in broadcasting sports nationally much more frequently. RSNs are dying, and MLB is getting ready to launch its own Nationwide service in 2027/28. I think Apple makes a play for the MLB to make it a national sport again, once their next CBA deals with all the blackouts that had been plaguing fans for year. They already show Friday night and some Sunday game, and ESPN has just dropped baseball altogether starting in 2026.
→ More replies (1)17
u/semibiquitous 15d ago
They gave all T Mobile users free MLS season this year. $80 value. Thats big.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Starsgirl97 15d ago
And next week mlbtv. Not apple specific, but both have been a T-Mobile deal for a few years.
→ More replies (8)8
u/toodlelux 15d ago
You know what though, I’m following the MLS for the first time ever this season because of how accessible the service is— reasonable price and no local blackouts.
It was between Sounders and Mariners for my summer sport, and Mariners is impossible for cable cutters.
720
u/Mighty-Wings 15d ago
Slow Horses, Silo, For All Mankind and Severance are exceptional. Apple TV might not have depth, but they absolutely make up for it in quality.
165
u/Ultrex 15d ago
Is Dark Matter apple tv too?
→ More replies (3)74
u/PretendThisIsMyName 15d ago
Yeah. That was one hell of a ride too. Honestly haven’t been disappointed in anything I’ve watched on it. Foundation kinda fell apart in S2 for me but that’s it.
63
u/peoplearecool 15d ago
I love Foundation. Even if it kindnof waffles, it’s so epic that i hope it continues forever many seasons (like The Expanse)
9
→ More replies (1)4
u/RaDiOaCtIvEpUnK 15d ago
All this did is make me sad the expanse didn’t keep going.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)35
179
u/The_Seeker_25920 15d ago
Don’t forget Shrinking and Ted Lasso!
→ More replies (1)86
u/HomeAir 15d ago
Harrison Ford in shrinking is like the first role he seems like he's having fun with.
29
u/GregLoire 15d ago
"Harrison, you don't seem to be having fun in your other roles."
::thumps chest:: "My bad."
→ More replies (1)11
u/SpacecaseCat 15d ago
"Harrison, you get to be grumpy and insult young people and--"
"You had me at being grumpy."
13
9
30
→ More replies (32)4
u/No-Advice-6040 15d ago
That's the problem tho. If there is a quality show, but not many of them, I'd be more inclined to sign up for a month, binge, then dump them until they have more. Little to justify being a full time sub.
→ More replies (3)
1.4k
u/SamShakusky71 15d ago
Apple had net income of over $90 billion last year. Losing a billion on a budding platform is nothing to them,
367
u/brazilliandanny 15d ago
They have a massive war chest, they could lose 10 times that and not even flinch
74
→ More replies (5)33
u/mjc4y 15d ago
Exaclty.
I cant help but indulge in a bit of silly and naive math: Apple is worth 3.2 Trillion bucks, then Apple will have to stop this loss-leader thing in the year 5225.
I'm being silly. Don't ackshually me.
→ More replies (3)19
u/3_50 15d ago
I can't help but ackshually; Apple doesn't have 3.2 trillion bucks...
They have about 65 billion....
→ More replies (5)15
79
u/youreblockingmyshot 15d ago
Yea they aren’t some new company that is inhaling VC money to disrupt. They can easily fund this kind of loss forever if they wanted and not take much notice. Realistically they’re building their catalog of shows and movies and will increase price for access later, that or they will decrease the release of new material once they have a decent amount built up which will also drive down cost. Probably a combination of both in ~5 years.
→ More replies (1)29
u/_Diskreet_ 15d ago
I’ve always said Apple could buy the entire rights to the Premier League, for shits and giggles and see if it gets them any more subscribers and if it doesn’t pay off just shrug and move onto the next thing.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (22)27
u/HanzJWermhat 15d ago
It doesn’t event need to be a budding platform, Apple streaming could never make money but it’s worth it for the brand image
17
u/UlrichZauber 15d ago
Apple has long invested in ways to improve the "halo effect" and get people to buy the hardware. Spending what it takes to make shows that are actually good seems like a good use of funds.
28
u/contactfive 15d ago
I’m sure it helps sell Apple TV devices as well. I finally switched to one after using a fire stick for years and the difference in quality is astounding.
→ More replies (2)36
u/echief 15d ago
A lot of people on reddit don’t understand the intangible value of business decisions like this.
Apple has spent a lot of time and effort establishing its ecosystem. There is a reason so many people just upgrade their iPhone when they need a new one. They don’t stop and think to consider the other smartphone options, they want pick up a new phone and have it work as quickly as possible. A version of the old one that’s a bit faster, longer battery life, maybe better camera.
They don’t go searching around for different wireless headphone options they just buy a new pair of AirPods when their old ones break. And it is not because these people are stupid, it is because the products Apple sells tend to be very high quality (like AirPods) and Apple has put so much time and effort into establishing this ecosystem in a way where everything easily works and syncs together. Apple is probably the most successful company in the world at this business strategy. They have far surpassed the brand loyalty you used to see with things like car companies.
For the same reason Costco will happily lose millions and millions of dollars per year on their hotdogs. Because tiny things like that keep people coming back. Costco is not dumb and throwing tons of money away, failing to compete with a hot dog vendor down on the street. The loss on that hotdog dog was already factored in when you bought the membership. Apple is not trying to compete specifically against Netflix. They are trying to sell you an entire ecosystem and they do not have to compete equally on all fronts at the same time.
→ More replies (5)13
u/too_too2 15d ago
also the ecosystem is pretty great. I have an apple TV and some home pods, and they work great together. They also work pretty well with our sonos.
513
u/PeatBomb 15d ago
That's a shame considering they have some great content. There's just too many streaming platforms.
393
u/juanzy 15d ago
They seem to have filled the old HBO void of giving creative people a ton of budget at the expense of volume of shows.
251
15d ago
[deleted]
132
u/BallerGuitarer 15d ago
They’re the anti-Netflix.
Netflix also started with great shows like House of Cards and movies like Beasts of No Nation.
Even before streaming, we all saw Discovery Channel go from great educational content to reality TV.
Everything enshittifies eventually.
→ More replies (9)19
24
u/giulianosse 15d ago
Legit. It has come to the point where if a new show is an Apple TV production I'm instantly more receptive/interested in watching it - just like old HBO used to be.
→ More replies (12)13
u/MovieTrawler 15d ago
I love Apple TV+ and will champion it too the moon and back but Invasion was bad.
→ More replies (3)32
u/BarbequedYeti 15d ago
They are quickly becoming the home of sci-fi. I am here for it.
Now just add some old school science and discovery shows that you can actually learn something from instead of whatever the hell they air today.
→ More replies (2)7
33
u/N05L4CK 15d ago
They definitely feel like the new (old?) HBO.
53
u/juanzy 15d ago
I would say HBO is still high quality, but so much of their content is now blended with Max it hurts the brand.
27
u/trailer_park_boys 15d ago
Combining it with Max devalued the overall quality the brand was known for.
11
u/LockeandDemo 15d ago
That's what happens when you let David Zaslav get his grubby paws on anything moderately successful.
8
u/tvfeet 15d ago
It definitely has. I've gotten downvoted for suggesting HBO's content is as good as it ever was and even had some stupid little arguments on reddit when I've tried to point out that you can just ignore the non-HBO content and you're still getting access to one of the best collections of streaming content out there. Just the mere presence of, mainly, Discovery content seems to make people think everything on Max sucks. (And even some of the Max-exclusive content is good - The Pitt is a Max exclusive and it's one of the best things I've watched in the past year or two.)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)22
u/baudinl 15d ago
Old HBO shows always took chances and were seen as transgressive. Shows like OZ, Sopranos, and The Wire are foundational to modern TV. Apple shows always feel a little too sanitized and a little boring.
→ More replies (4)13
u/zdelusion 15d ago
I feel like it's hard to compare those environments. HBO was going against FCC regulated networks. Looking gritty was appealing and differentiated them. Apple is going up against mass produced shlock. I'd argue their absolute tunnel vision on quality is fairly transgressive these days.
16
u/ankercrank 15d ago
It’s a catch-22. People hated paying for cable because they were paying for content they never watched. Then came the splintering of content providers, where suddenly there are endless services and no one can sign up for all of them. Meanwhile there’s on demand services that charge you for individual content in a pay-as-you-go approach…
Realistically, this covers all the possible means of getting content, which suggests customers have all the options they’ve ever demanded, yet aren’t satisfied still.
What’s the ask here? One service that has everything? No competition? That sucks.
→ More replies (5)8
u/TheWorldEndsWithCake 15d ago
What’s the ask here? One service that has everything?
Seems to work with music. I get the revenue model is different, but from the customer POV when I want to listen to Kidz Bop 420, I want it to be available on Spotify because I pay for that. When I want to watch a film or series, I don’t want to have to hunt for where it’s available, download a new app, sign up for a new subscription, VPN into another region, etc.
It’s inconvenient. Spotify has basically all of the music I would find anywhere else, aside from extremely niche stuff. It’s not so much that the value is bad, but people don’t think “wow, what films will I be able to watch in the dazzling Peacock catalogue” but “ugh, Die Hard isn’t here either?? WTF do I pay for this for”. It feels like being annoyed into paying excess subscriptions (like cable…), in an age where piracy is a better option than ever.
All of the greedy, license-holding piggies want a piece of the pie, which is why we saw a dozen streaming services be born and die since Netflix came on the stage. It’s not unreasonable consumers, but unreasonable producers.
11
u/ankercrank 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’m pretty sure unless regulation forces content to not be “exclusive”, we won’t see this change. The biggest issue is the streaming services are creating their own content. It’s a bit like movie theaters owning the production studios. Unless that’s forbidden by law, I don’t see how this changes.
Streaming services are all basically the same, which is why they started producing exclusive content for their own platforms.
Why won't this be regulated? The same reason you only find Kirkland products at Costco, they exist to help get people in the door.
→ More replies (1)12
118
u/nonlawyer 15d ago
If only there was some kind of service that could bundle together a whole bunch of different sources of content
If it came through to your house on some kind of wire or cable we could call it “Wire”
18
u/reeker 15d ago
I will not have this pro cable revisionism in my house. All people ever said when there was no choice in the matter is "why am I paying so much for cable?? Just let me pay for the channels I want!" and now that we have that presented to us people are like, wait I have to pay $20 for each of them???
→ More replies (2)68
u/JaesopPop 15d ago
But then I'd have to pay for all of them instead of just the ones I want.
34
→ More replies (1)8
u/Saneless 15d ago
We know you want HBO, but we're gonna charge you an extra $15 for TLC, Bravo, and the Real Housewives Channel
→ More replies (10)9
→ More replies (21)4
u/XilenceBF 15d ago
Apple also hands out 3 months free trials left and right. They don’t seem too fussed on making profits with Apple TV+.
→ More replies (1)
73
u/dj_soo 15d ago edited 15d ago
Apple TV has such an anemic selection compared to the others, but their big, tentpole shows are really great.
Severance, Silo, Shrinking, Slow Horses, and Ted Lasso are all amazing shows and there are more coming out it seems (hear good things about Dope Thief).
I'm trying to do the thing where I only use 2-3 services at a time so once i get through Slow Horses, i'll probably unsub until the new seasons of those shows come out.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Galezilla 15d ago
I just wait until I can get a month free trial and then binge the shows I want to watch
21
u/baudinl 15d ago
Don't forget they were the first streaming platform to get a Best Picture Oscar with CODA
→ More replies (3)
23
u/thealumnus 15d ago
Considering they spent $20 billion developing the Vision Pro … I would say losing $1 billion a year on Apple TV plus is a steal
→ More replies (1)
29
u/eggflip1020 15d ago edited 15d ago
And they are doing it gladly. They are spending a ton of money on because they can and not even blink. Apple are smart enough to know that producing slick shows and movies with cool looking characters often using their devices is great branding. Apple TV+ is a giant mechanism for them to sell computers and iPads and more importantly Apple TV boxes. They have literally all the money in the world so it’s all good for them.
108
u/grilledcheeseburger 15d ago
I feel like this is a prestige thing for them and they don't really care if it makes money. They get about $200 billion in revenue a year from the iPhone alone, a billion a year is probably worthwhile for them.
43
u/Zipurax 15d ago
Oh, they do care about it. That's why they pulled the plug on Wolfs' theatrical release after their other movies bombed.
→ More replies (11)10
u/gatsby365 15d ago
And the Wolfs sequel
9
u/NeoNoireWerewolf 15d ago
According to Jon Watts, he killed the Wolfs sequel after Apple backed out of the theatrical release.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)32
58
u/hardy_83 15d ago
People in some countries are getting poorer, you're going to see a lot of subscription services start to suffer cause of this.
21
15d ago
It’s not like in the US the economy is getting any better. People are struggling to make ends meet everywhere. Keeping a streaming service with somewhat good overall content is a very high commodity.
→ More replies (3)25
u/dabocx 15d ago
Netflix is still growing without issue. And that’s with them raising prices a lot
→ More replies (5)35
u/rustyphish 15d ago
Guarantee you Blockbuster executives said this same thing during their run
Everyone is invincible until they’re not
→ More replies (12)
9
25
u/rforest3 15d ago
It has some of the best and most consistent content. The only one worth my money right now honestly. Half the people crapping on it haven’t even used it I’m sure.
8
84
u/alwaysfatigued8787 15d ago
That doesn't surprise me. They definitely have some good content, but not nearly as much as some of the other streaming services.
32
u/ChafterMies 15d ago
It’s the content that’s costing them money. More content would lose them more money. The issue is marketshare. Coming in late to the game ain’t easy.
→ More replies (5)10
u/Mantis_Toboggan--MD 15d ago
While true, the only way to increase market share would be to pump out enough stuff to keep people signed up all year while also getting more to sign up. It's all tied together. They only get me signed up for a couple months a year because I realized there can be stretches of months without something I actually really want to watch. So I instead I sign up for a month every so often and watch whatever backlog of things I've missed that actually interest me.
→ More replies (1)8
u/the_421_Rob 15d ago
I know we have never paid for Apple plus, between my partner and I we have bought a PS5 got a free year, I have two phones ones for work one is personal, my work phone is replaced every 2 years and I replace my personal every 3-4, she replaced hers every 3-4 as well but on a different schedule, I also have a person iPad and a work iPad all of these things come with 3-6 months of Apple TV and the little bit we don’t have it we don’t even notice
5
u/PontesDeLeon 15d ago
Yep I’ve done the same. Also have never paid for one month of Paramount+ as they constantly do free one month trials. Hard to make money when you are constantly giving the service away for free.
16
22
9
7
5
u/pauliereynolds 15d ago
They’re not loosing $1B they’re investing in content, build it and they will come..
11
u/ThatGuyFromTheM0vie 15d ago
I wish companies could just not care about this sort of thing.
Like Apple makes a million dollars a second—they also have a massive asset war chest.
Why not do this just for the…art? But also the positive brand association? Like make baller shows that people associate Apple with high quality content…
Like Google barely breaks even on YouTube at the best of times and the content moderation is a nightmare, but they keep it around because it makes them the de facto video sharing platform on the entire internet (I don’t count TikTok, since the videos are shorts and that’s a separate thing).
I can fire up YouTube and watch anything from a very high quality documentary about an über niche thing or I can watch a tutorial about how to change my oil on some outdated weird car model that only 10 people know about.
And it’s amazing.
So why can’t Apple just have the “best” original streaming content for the value of having that?
There should be more to business than just profits.
→ More replies (1)5
u/eharvill 15d ago
Why not do this just for the…art? But also the positive brand association? Like make baller shows that people associate Apple with high quality content…
I mean, they do, right? They have a small catalog, but most of their shows are very high quality.
11
u/OhFuuuccckkkkk 15d ago
This isn’t a loss. It’s capex towards making content. They make this back in a few days on hardware revenue and services subscriptions. That’s the whole point.
4
4
u/JayPlenty24 14d ago
They aren't "losing" money if the service is encouraging people to buy more Apple products. Plenty of companies have loss-leaders
8
7
u/beratna66 15d ago
Yeah but their sci fi shows put everyone else's to shame. Even Foundation, which is absolutely awful as an adaptation of the Foundation novels, is a great sci fi show
16
u/Bigfamei 15d ago
A quarter of that is MLS and we know they aren't seeing returns on that.
→ More replies (23)
3
u/AiFixedMyMarriage 15d ago
I mean, they have some of the best original shows on streaming, I don't have to sift through garbage or a million other shows that fizzle out after a single season.
I would gladly pay a little more for the top tier entertainment they are putting out and drop one of the other 6+ streaming services I have.
3
3
u/CrustyToeLover 15d ago
Which is kinda crazy because out of all streaming right now, Apple is putting out arguably the best series of anyone. And for an honestly decent price, imo.
→ More replies (1)
3.0k
u/No-Comment-4619 15d ago
Just stay up and running until midnight tonight and I'm good.