Discussion in 'TV + Film' started by Trinu 3.0, Aug 8, 2019.
I’ve been watching servant on there but it’s nothing special
Servant is spectacular. I just finished rewatching the first season before the second and I'm very excited to start it.
I'm gonna give season two of For All Mankind a go, too, but I'm still not gripped by the show yet. It's interesting and got enjoyable by the end of the first season, but I feel like there's no great or particularly likable characters to really hook me.
I'm genuinely curious to see how long Apple TV can survive. The fact they keep extending the free membership leads me to wonder just how many people are actually paying specifically for it.
Apple has the money to keep it going for as long as they want. They’re not exactly strapped for cash.
Apple TV will survive and go on to thrive. They're the only ones in a position to take on Amazon. There's a clear distinction forming between "platform" and "channel" and Apple and Amazon are the only services solidly positioning themselves as the former.
Disney could easily do this, too, especially with Star launching internationally, but they're never gonna open up their platform to third parties like Apple and Amazon have.
Smaller streamers have already partnered with Apple and Amazon, and more will come in time. There'll be plenty of holdouts from companies with large funds. I can see HBO trying to remain separate. Netflix certainly will never allow their content to be streamed through Apple or Amazon. But I think that will harm them in the long run.
Eventually we'll wonder why we ever filled our phones and tablets with half a dozen poorly-built apps when we can just download Amazon Prime or Apple TV and then toggle on and off the channels we want or don't want.
Apple TV+ and Amazon Originals are there to give their services a USP but at the end of they day these companies view TV content as a commodity to trade and they'll welcome partnerships because they want you to watch as much television as you can and to be the app that that happens through.
Whereas Disney, HBO, NBC, Netflix... Their models are the opposite, they want to limit how much TV you watch because they want you to stay within their walls and not explore options they didn't have a hand in producing.
I think this walled-garden approach is bad for consumers and ultimately bad for the companies and Apple and Amazon's visions of a unified TV experience will win out and make them the two major players in this industry over the next ten years.
Perhaps, but...let's see if they're going to "thrive". Current research shows a market share for AppleTV+ of 3% in the US, i.e. a very Apple-affine country where they theoretically have about 40 million "subscribers" due to the free trials given out with new devices. I don't wanna know how it looks in countries where Apple has a lower market share, and therefore has less of an in with potential customers. That's why I don't think Apple is in quite as good as a position as you make out, especially internationally when comparing with Amazon.
Yes, but on top of that revenue, you need to add revenue from Apple TV box sales (their most popular non-mac and non-iOS product), their % commission of subscriptions to Showtime, Shudder, AMC, etc. through their app, plus iTunes rental and sales commission. Their television business is diverse and far-reaching and they've got many levers to pull as they establish themselves as a dominant force in this industry. The same is true of Amazon.
Netflix, however, has one metric for success: subscribers. They're going to start slowing down and there's not a whole lot they can do about it except pump more money into content and marketing and spending more money than ever in a more crowded marketplace than ever is hardly going to make them more attractive to further investment. They're at their peak and there's really no route up for them, compared to Apple who has everything to fight for climbing to the top of the market, even if it takes them years.
That's not to say I think Netflix is going anywhere but I absolutely see a future where Apple, Amazon, and Disney are the "big three" and Netflix takes fourth place as the biggest "indie" streamer.
I think a lot of the time when people discuss Apple's lack of success in this area it's because they're singling out Apple TV+ and comparing it to Netflix when in reality Apple's TV business is much wider reaching and really they could be more of a Sky/Comcast without the infrastructure, if they play their cards right.
I just cannot see Netflix slowing down for a long time. It’s completely ubiquitous. It is undoubtedly the market leader in every way.
I'm not arguing that Apple is going to continue printing money, and a lot of the revenue streams you mention pay into that of course. But AppleTV also currently does not really play a big role on the global scale, making up about 2% of streaming devices worldwide. According to that reports there are more than three times as many people streaming through their Playstations than using an AppleTV at all. So while I am sure their overall "television business" is healthy, there's quite a wide gap they'd have to close in order to be one of "the big three".
I'm really not writing Apple off here, they managed to get a relevant market share in music streaming as well. But their position there was really a lot better, due to the market share and cultural relevance of the iPhone.
But, like, that's my entire point? Sony have been working on getting a PlayStation in every living room for 25 years. Give Apple a similar time frame and I think they'll be a top-three player in the market.
But it's an unfair comparison, anyway. I would guess PlayStations being purchased as streaming devices with no intention of gaming round to 0%. They're games consoles that people buy to play games, the streaming is a bonus. If you were to ask people to pick a streaming device and left games out of it, would it still be 7%? Probably not.
Also, if someone watches Apple TV+ on a Samsung TV, that study would record that as a Samsung stream, so... It's odd data for comparing success in streaming. Apple's service is software based and the box is adjacent but not key.
The fairer comparisons though are Roku (5%), Fire (5%) and Android devices (4%) which don't make Apple's 2% look as bad.
Also, the data only includes streaming through television sets. It doesn't include anyone watching TV on an iPad, iPhone, or Mac, despite these being important to Apple's TV business too. Even with Netflix usage, 30% of it happens away from a TV set.
It's just odd, really, because like I say I think Apple can go far with this, and the entire reason they're lagging behind it because they waited so long to actually get in the game, and I don't know why. Their vision for television isn't anything special and they should've been on this from about 2014 onwards instead of releasing the app in 2016 then waiting three years to do anything decent with it.
That delaying is the main reason I think they're having a slow start.
Edit: I believe the Apple TV app is now on PlayStation by the way, so again, that's expanded their market by quite a bit and that 7% doesn't have to conflict with Apple, Apple can cannibalise it.
I literally don't know anyone who actually uses AppleTV+. Even their 'buzzy' shows haven't really made any big impact (I'm looking at The Morning Show, as I wouldn't qualify any of their other shows as 'buzzy' ddd). Netflix, meanwhile, is continuing to churn out massive global events; they just had their biggest launch ever with Bridgerton. Obviously it took Netflix a lot of work to get where they are, but I just don't see Apple ever getting there. Their slate of shows looks... medicore. They have a few that I'm interested in (notably Ted Lasso and Mythic Quest), but those aren't the kinds of shows that people are going to fork over subscription costs for. Can they stick around forever because Apple is Apple? Probably. But will they ever truly become an essential streaming service? Most likely not.
But I do think @Nillness is correct. All of these competing apps...people are already confused. Eventually the apps will be merged down and they'll become on demand channels and we'll use Apple and Amazon to do it. That is where the real money is for Apple. Lets remember a lot of these channels aren't even profitable yet - investors just think the investment in content to get new subscribers is worth the capital cost at the moment.
That’s the thing, AppleTV+ will never be a competitive streaming platform without a library of content. Over a year in, and you can still consume all of their material over the span of a week. They aren’t doing anything to attempt building up third-party content, which is what keeps subscribers committed to services like Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/Disney+.
But as @Nillness says, I don’t think that’s their goal. AppleTV+ is just a nice free cherry on top of the increased software sales where they actually make their money. AppleTV is only increasing as a popular TV provider/platform, VS things like Amazon Firestick, Roku, etc. While the numbers are still low, it’s becoming more and more common to see AppleTVs in people’s homes, especially as the list of apps/subscription services increases and people are desperate to have a single home to hold them all. It’s been a game-changing software for me, and we have been praising it to anyone we can, convincing numerous others to also buy one.
At this point, AppleTV+’s content is just expensive advertising for AppleTV devices, and I don’t think the goals for that will change anytime soon.
This was a rumour before it launched and I totally could believe it. But then I got to the, uh, masturbation scene in See and... yeah.
I wonder what creative control they wanted.
They are doing this now actually! Although only slowly, I think they've only bought Long Way Down/Long Way Round and Fraggle Rock. I don't think they plan on being like Netflix on that though, or they'd probably have tried to make deals to migrate the iTunes content over or something.
What I think is odd is that Apple is dismissed for only having originals, while Disney is praised for its big catalog. I'm honestly surprised that's people's priority. I've loved all of Apple's originals (almost) and think they're worth paying for, but if I wasn't piggybacking on my dad's Disney account, I don't think I would buy it. They've had like... Three fictional originals for adults in more than a year? One that isn't a spinoff of a kids film?
It's basically a glorified DVD collection and even then only of family films ddd
I guess Star will change this though.
I would love to know. I assumed from Servant that they're giving creators total control! Doesn't seem like a network interference kinda show...
Netflix are going to be the number 1 streaming service for many many years, I think some people here are overestimating how much your average consumer cares about having all these different channels in one place. For a lot of people Netflix is the only channel they actually want. It's the channel with the most content by far, it's the channel all their friends have, it's the channel everyone talks about, it's the channel that regularly has shows that blow up out of nowhere and which are all over social media. Ubiquity begets ubiquity, it's the reward you reap when you come to completely dominate a new sector in the very early days.
It's a bit like the gaming industry. Whenever a new generation of consoles is released the winner is basically decided in the first 12 months and the rest of the generation just builds on that pattern because when a console is established as the success early on it's the one everyone buys into, it's the one your friends talk about, if you want to play games with your friends you have to buy that console etc. And Sony have such a headstart over everyone else because of the sheer ubiquity of the PlayStation brand, they're five steps ahead constantly because of it.
Netflix are Playstation. It is going to take something incredible to pry people away. I would bet good money that if you asked people with multiple streaming subs which one they would get rid of last if they were in financial difficulty it would be Netflix 95% of the time. Partly because of the library of content and partly just because it's Netflix and you don't want to feel excluded by not having it.
But...that's my point. The fact that more people use their Playstations for streaming instead of an additional box (which, by the way, has also been around for 14 years now) surely isn't a great indication that they can expect the same synergy effects for Apple TV+ as they could for the Apple Music/iPhone situation. My point was not that users won't have access to their service without an Apple TV device.
But you know what, let's see. I am the farthest away from being a "professional analyst" as you could imagine, so perhaps this will turn out to be huge for them. Personally, I'd not bet on it as of now.
So... CBS All Acess is going to be Paramount+. To be honest the slate of programming sounds really good (except the present day Flashdance series - the charm of that is the music and the 80‘s setting, so not sure what they are thinking).
I agree with everything said about Netflix above. It obviously at this point has an enormous market saturation and is by default the provider of choice for most people, but they really need to up their game a little. All of these new competitors have quite a few high profile shows on the way, and Netflix just has.. a lot of mostly mediocre stuff. I don‘t see them falling behind with subscribers but I also don‘t think they will be able to increase prices the way they did before with programming like that.
Separate names with a comma.