Submitted by Murky-Insect-7556 t3_ycgfx0 in television
Isiddiqui t1_itm0q5i wrote
>We introduced Apple TV+ at a very low price because we started with just a few shows and movies. Three years later, Apple TV+ is home to an extensive selection of award-winning and broadly acclaimed series, feature films, documentaries, and kids and family entertainment from the world’s most creative storytellers.
Seems like Apple fully intends to reach the prices of other streaming services once they get enough content that they can justify it.
Lots of folks were thinking Apple was going to keep the prices super low indefinitely as a loss leader, since they could easily absorb the cost. Guess not.
mountainhighgoat t1_itn007d wrote
They still don’t have a library of content to justify this price increase.
LcukyFcuk t1_itnb9kp wrote
Totally agree, they can talk about having a larger catalog of programming, but it's nonsense. I log in every few weeks and look at what they have that's new and I'm always left bummed. Will likely cancel.
mountainhighgoat t1_itncc2t wrote
Yeah, because they refuse to buy a library of content like other streaming services.
vadergeek t1_itnn2fi wrote
Other than Netflix I think most of the other services are basically a pre-existing content library that started a streaming service, which makes more sense.
Mentoman72 t1_itocqet wrote
There's a couple shows to come back for. Severance, FAM, Ted Lasso. They don't have the HBO lineup to keep you subscribed year round
xyzzyzyzzyx t1_itqar6b wrote
What incredibly fickle behavior.
Summebride t1_itplgtd wrote
That was my initial reaction.
But considering it in a long term context, 30 years ago it cost $6.99 to rent one movie, for one night. And everyone was happy to pay it. Usually you'd rent 2 movies, maybe $9.99 for two. Then you'd go back and do it again. Spending $20+ per week at blockbuster was normal, and that when $20 was worth a lot more than it is today.
If you had a crystal ball back then, the idea of watching hundreds of tv episodes and movies for $6.99 would have been mind blowing, and you wouldn't be fussing over $4.99 vs $6.99
The current streaming prices don't reflect the true cost of creating and distributing the content. It's only been kept in this fake unnatural state because of stock market exploitation (some cases, like Netflix) or because the richest companies in history are giving it away as a loss leader.
ascagnel____ t1_itpz80k wrote
Netflix found value where nobody else thought to look (old shows that had either ended their syndication runs or never had syndication runs in the first place, and buying streaming rights from Starz) and turned it into a $125B business.
Sherringdom t1_itpqg0n wrote
I don’t know how much other people watch tv but Apple TV has been the one streaming platform that’s almost always had a new show I’m interested in watching, and I generally only have time for an episode or two a night. Compared to Netflix, prime and Disney most of the new stuff I watch is on Apple. Disney is more for my kid, prime I barely use at all and Netflix has the odd show that comes up which I’ll eventually watch. Considering it’s still basically half the price of the others I think it’s decent value.
wujo444 t1_itmgz9c wrote
If we believe that AppleTV+ has only 25 mln paid subscribers, that extra $2/month adds up to $600 mln per year, with budget started that at $6,5 billion in 2019 which they likely went through by now.
Even with the price hike they are gonna be losing more money than the budget of several other streaming services.
cadtek t1_ito0946 wrote
Considering this almost like a side project for them, they're not gonna feel that hurt.
wujo444 t1_itpeda0 wrote
Kinda, but even then you need some really good arguments after losing north from 20 billion dollars in 4 years on a project. While they can lose more money, they need some evidence that it makes sense in longer period.
Summebride t1_itpm726 wrote
When your cash hoard is hundreds of billions, $20 billion is couch cushion change.
And they HAVE made their argument. Apple, for many years, has stated they're trying to drastically alter their product mix so that hardware/items gives way to services revenue. Apple TV subscription business fits that strategy.
Selling an iPhone requires... an iPhone. Thousands of parts. Intricate assembly. Packaging. Shipping. Sure, there's revenue, but every phone sold means a lot of expenses to design and build the thing. Sell more iPhones, you have more costs because you're building multiple units.
With services, the revenue can be scaled and expanded without degradation or cost. The money you spend making Ted Lasso is the same whether you collect subscription money from 2 customers or 2 million customers.
wujo444 t1_itpwyjj wrote
Saying there is no cost to streaming scaling is not entirely true. The service still pays for the data transfer and running servers per user; and the cost is highest for ATVP where all content is in high bitrate 4k HDR. They are still paying royalties to the creators. And it needs constant updates with new content which is not that easy to aquire.
And while Apple currently outsources production, it's not as trivial as you make it seem. Making a modern TV show is a business for thousands of people. There is big logistic behind each, and Apple orders dozens of them every year.
There are services with low upkeep, but this one has to constantly evolve with new content making it quite costly. Apple supposedly spend 22 bln dollars on R&D in 2021 - compare it to 18 bln dollars that Netflix spend on content creation and something like 7-8bln Appletv plus had budgeted.
Prax150 t1_itmq2b7 wrote
I think they'll inevitably swallow up one of their competitors and merge platforms. They literally have the largest corporate cash stockpile in the world and outside of Amazon they probably wouldn't have much trouble merging with or outright buying any of their competitors, outside of antitrust issues (which, let's be honest, is barely a hurdle anymore in the US).
Radulno t1_itmyaqi wrote
Yeah they would have no problem but Apple isn't known for big acquisitions like that. Beats remains their biggest one IIRC.
Also, I don't think they're going all-in (or even half in) on video streaming, Apple TV+ is like a side hustle to them, it's not their main interest.
They could have gone for Warner when AT&T sold it but apparently had no interest (Comcast and Discovery were the only ones apparently and Comcast dropped it). Now that's it's with shitty reality TV with Discovery, I highly doubt they are more interested
[deleted] t1_itoqh7i wrote
[deleted]
Prax150 t1_itqe285 wrote
You're right I think Beats is pretty much their only 10+ digit buy. They generally make really smart acquisitions so I think it's more a matter of waiting for the right company to buy rather than not wanting to spend the money. I could totally see why they wouldn't be interested in a legacy company like Comcast or Warner that comes with more problems than it's probably worth.
Honestly I'm thinking more Netflix. They've very highly valued now but if the price is right that feels like it could fit.
Isiddiqui t1_itmqnoh wrote
Though one of the reasons they have so much cash is they don't randomly buy up companies. And at this point, they don't have too many options. I don't think they'd want to run a broadcast network (or deal with the increased scrutiny if they did), so Disney, Paramount, and Peacock are out. Maaaybe WBD, but they weren't really in play for Warner Brothers when AT&T wanted to get rid of it before.
TiberiusCornelius t1_itoaq7h wrote
WB apparently had shitloads of debt before the Discovery merger though and their stock is currently about half of what it was in April shortly after the merger went through. Not saying that they will definitely go in for it, but I could see how maybe it could be a more enticing option now that Zaslav has Batgirl'd away some of the debt and it could probably be scooped up for less than what AT&T wanted.
thesmartfool t1_itmdutj wrote
They have a lot of content coming out later this year and next year. Plus, they have sports.
Isiddiqui t1_itmh9ze wrote
None of the sports will be on Apple TV+ at least at this point.
BSC25M t1_itmnf13 wrote
Which would be a true statement if there weren’t already sports on Apple TV+…
Isiddiqui t1_itmnll0 wrote
There are literally no sports on Apple TV+ right now. There is Friday Night Baseball which is on the Apple TV app, free to everyone. No TV+ required.
BSC25M t1_itmojdy wrote
How many times do you want to be wrong?
They have the contract for MLS next year…this isn’t a situation of “well maybe the price increase will be worth it if they get sports” it’s “we have exclusive sports programming so we’re worth more now”
Isiddiqui t1_itmoq4m wrote
MLS contract is a separate subscription service on the Apple TV app. Likely will cost $50-$100 a year. Season Ticket Holders (of which I am one) will get it for free.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/apple/
> Fans can get every live MLS match by subscribing to a new MLS streaming service, available exclusively through the Apple TV app
They'll throw a free game of the week on the Apple app and probably a few more on Apple TV+ but the entire thing is going to be on a separate subscription as well Sunday Ticket if they get it.
Want to try again?
BSC25M t1_itmpc3z wrote
As part of the agreement, season ticket holders will get free access to MLS related content. All Apple TV+ subscribers ($4.99 month) will also have access to every MLS game with several matches available for free to anyone with Internet access
Are you done being wrong yet? You’re just getting annoying at this point…
Blocked either way because I’m not in the mood for ignorance today…
Murky-Insect-7556 OP t1_itmz9d7 wrote
In the official Apple press release, they mentioned that only a few select games, will be available for free for TV+ subscribers.
If you want to watch all the games, that’s a separate subscription, available through the Apple TV app. Has nothing to do with Apple TV+
MadeByTango t1_itn4q5p wrote
Dude, don’t use Forbes contributors for sources, they’re glorified Reddit self posts and have almost no editorial oversight.
The “contributor” you’ve linked to misread the press release. Here is a better source for you: https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/06/apple-mls-deal-questions-breakdown/
The deal was for “matches on the Apple TV platform via an MLS streaming service within the app.” You’re wrong, but if that article is why then it’s understandable.
Nude-Love t1_itnu51u wrote
My mans is super committed to being absolutely wrong here lmaoooo 💀
random_encounters42 t1_itnegc6 wrote
Modern Apple has never completed on price for anything. It's always more expensive than their counterparts.
Mandelmus100 t1_itpbeg0 wrote
Apple doesn't really do loss leaders.
[deleted] t1_ito9x05 wrote
[deleted]
HumanOrAlien t1_itmqxlh wrote
It's Apple we are talking about. Of course they are going to increase the prices. Except for Apple Music I don't think they have any other good product that they don't sell as the most expensive alternative to everything else.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments