Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Television Apple Entertainment

Apple TV+ Meets Rivals on Originals, But Lack of Back Catalog Is Big Omission (bloomberg.com) 44

Apple launches its TV+ original video streaming service Friday, ending years of anticipation about the company's next act in television. But it will lack what many consumers want: a giant library of their favorite movies and shows. From a report: Over the past decade, the iPhone maker has explored building its own TV set, buying major content firms like Time Warner and partnering with cable companies on new TV set-top boxes. Instead, it landed on a combination of a video aggregation app, on-demand access to pay-TV channels like HBO and Starz and a $4.99 monthly subscription service of original movies and television shows. The subscription service will be available on millions of iPhones, iPads, Macs and Apple TV boxes in 100 countries beginning Friday, just days ahead of Disney+ and months before comparable services from Comcast Corp. and AT&T Apple TV+ is currently focused entirely on original content, but its lack of a library of older fan favorites puts the service behind its rivals.

Apple's original slate of content includes fewer than 10 programs coming Friday and a total of 15 in the initial slate. Disney+ is scheduled to begin Nov. 12, and it, too, is advertising 15 titles from among its first round of originals. Similarly, Peacock from Comcast's NBCUniversal, is coming in April 2020 with 16 titles, while AT&T's HBO Max, launching at $14.99 a month in May 2020, has dozens in the works. Apple has said it plans to add new titles on a monthly basis to its service, meaning the $4.99 value will increase over time. Still, many people subscribe to the top video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video primarily for their giant back catalogs of content.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple TV+ Meets Rivals on Originals, But Lack of Back Catalog Is Big Omission

Comments Filter:
  • I totally agree with the points of the summary. The AppleTV+ catalog doesn't look that strong to start with, I'm not sure any of the shows are really amazing, and there's not really a back catalog.

    But it really does not matter for Apple. Why? Because it is for one thing cheap - just $5 a month so if you find one show you like much at all, that's pretty reasonable.

    But for another, it's secretly a lot cheaper than that (for a while). All of those people who just bought an iPhone 11/Pro recently? They all

    • Remember how Linux is free? Is your time free? I'm not investing my time, especially when the shows are drip released.

      • by Altus ( 1034 )

        if you get a free year and you choose not to watch, apple doesn't really lose anything. The shows being worth your time is also not related to what you spend on the service (though to be fair if you find them to not be worth your time they probably aren't worth your money either but the opposite isn't true, there is shit I wont pay for that I would consume if it were free)

    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's not cheap compared to Netflix which does include a back catalogue. Your suggestion of paying that for one show is silly in this day and age. Most desktops are not MacOS, most mobiles are not iOS, so that doesn't work for the majority of users either. Naa, this is not good.
      • It's not cheap compared to Netflix which does include a back catalogue. Your suggestion of paying that for one show is silly in this day and age.
        Most desktops are not MacOS, most mobiles are not iOS, so that doesn't work for the majority of users either.
        Naa, this is not good.

        In case you haven't noticed, Apple has the Apple TV App (and with it, the ability to subscribe to and watch TV+ Content) already integrated in Roku Boxes, Amazon Fire Sticks, Sony, LG and Vizio TVs (and maybe others).

        And Apple also has introduced aggressive bundling of 1-year-free TV+ subscriptions with Apple Music subscriptions (which not only already exists on Android; but now is available everywhere as a web-app), and with Apple Arcade subscriptions (and with millions upon millions of new iOS, iPadOS, Wa

    • But it requires Apple Hardware. Other services run on a lot of other platforms and on the Apple products. iTunes got its success from the popularity of the iPod. However the iPod came in while portable MP3 Players were in its early stages. Streaming TV services are well established, and already widely used. Even if it is a bit cheaper than the others, people already have the competitors and are probably trying to find to reduce their monthly bills and not add more monthly fees.

      Apples Golden age is slowl
      • But it requires Apple Hardware. Other services run on a lot of other platforms and on the Apple products.

        That's also the advantage though, most Apple product owners will probably subscribe and watch at one point, even for those that did not get it for free.

        That is tens of millions of devices. A huge number for any subscription service.

        Apples Golden age is slowly fading now.

        People keep saying that yet Apple keeps growing. From where I sit they are extremely well poised moving forward.

        Curious what you even t

      • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        But it requires Apple Hardware.

        Nope: Customers can enjoy Apple TV+ on iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, iPod touch, Mac, select Samsung smart TVs, Roku and Amazon Fire TV devices, as well as on the web at tv.apple.com.

    • by spun ( 1352 )

      Disney+ is $6.99 per month. Other streaming services are similarly priced. $5 per month is not cheap in comparison.

      This is like any newly born industry or market, there will be many entries into the market, quickly followed by most of them failing and leaving the market. I find it highly unlikely that Apple will be in the content distribution game in ten years. The Apple of today is anything but innovative, and straying outside their core competency into a newly developing market while trying to compete wit

      • Disney+ is $6.99 per month.

        And AppleTV+ is free, for a lot of people. That is cheap by comparison.

        Don't you think such people would get DIsney+ AND AppleTV+?

        What if you wanted to see, well, See... all you have to do is pay $5. How is that not cheap?

        You are only thinking about one raw number for one abstract concept (streaming service) without considering the multitude of ways people consider the value something gives them.

        I find it highly unlikely that Apple will be in the content distribution game in te

        • by spun ( 1352 )

          But I already have more than enough streaming content, and nothing Apple is listing appeals to me. Sorry, I just do not think Apple will have much success with this, but I'm not interested in arguing about it, it's just boring opinion and baseless speculation from all sides (including mine). I have no desire to learn more about their service. Apple and their products mean very little to me, professionally or personally. I think they have gone far, far downhill since their heyday. They are simply coasting on

        • by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

          eventually if you spend a lot of money producing content you will generate some popular shows.

          So more money makes a show more popular?

          I can't say that is true, as most of the shows I've enjoyed were pretty cheaply made. Good writing and decent acting are more important to me than flashy explosions and expensive car chases.

          They have more than enough money to fund it that long even if it's not popular.

          So, their going to keep dumping money in even if the boat is sinking? Good strategy.

          And the last reason of course is, they are not Google...

          How is this a positive? I guess you could say they are not Exon, they are not Comcast, they are not Halliburton, they are not AT&T (well they do partner with them though). You could lit

          • So more money makes a show more popular?

            That is not the whole story but it can help. It means you can hire better directors, better writers, better actors. All around it means you have the necessary, (but not necessarily sufficient) base for a possible hit show.

            I can't say that is true, as most of the shows I've enjoyed were pretty cheaply made.

            Most shows that are wildly popular were not cheap at all.

            So, their going to keep dumping money in even if the boat is sinking? Good strategy.

            You just jump out of a

            • by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

              Most shows that are wildly popular were not cheap at all.

              I didn't say "popular", I said shows I enjoyed watching. Most "popular" shows are so mind numbingly boring I can't stand more then a few minutes of them.

              You just jump out of a boat because the weather looks bad at the moment? Good strategy.

              No I never got in the boat because the boat looks like I'd need a tetanus shot. The captain also says pay no mind to those waves, it will be days before they reach us.

              Because Google has been down to abandon quite a lot of things, even some things people liked.

              Like replaceable batteries, headphone jacks, memory cards?

              Well they started a number of large scale video projects and have for many years been delivering high quality video content to people. So they have the infrastructure for distribution, now they are shoring up the production side.

              So, by that logic UPS is poised to take over all department store sales? I mean they have all the infrastructure for shipping g

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      It's like so what new shows. People will rotate for those, I am with local yokel Stan for a while because Netflix Australia is pretty lean on content and so swapped away, when I have somewhat exhausted Stan i will swap away. I don't expect to stay with any streaming service for more that six months to a year and just continue swapping.

      If they were smart the streamers would just trade content with other streamers and compete on better more reliable service and other sundry content, like music video streamin

  • Still, many people subscribe to the top video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video primarily for their giant back catalogs of content.

    What's the deal with airplane peanuts?

  • Because there isn't enough milquetoast television programming in the world that's so devoid of character that Apple's shareholders won't clutch their pearls when it becomes associated with their brand name.
  • by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Friday November 01, 2019 @11:17AM (#59369716)

    I Subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video (well, I am a Prime member...).

    If Netflix and Hulu had to rely on their "back catalog" of movies, they would (or should) go broke in short order.

    Netflix as a DVD to-your-door Rental service had a terrific catalog. But unfortunately, it seems that little of that embarrassment of riches ever made it to their Streaming Service. And Hulu's strong point was never a large movie catalog, at least AFAICT.

    Prime has a lot of movies; but more and more of them are rentals. That really doesn't "count" as "included with the subscription".

    All Apple has to do (and I fully expect them to do this) is provide a seamless gateway between Apple TV+ and iTunes movie and TV show rentals, and they are halfway "there", And they could have that up and running in less than a month, methinks.

    Then, Apple can start outbidding Netflix and the others on some older titles to offer "for free", and they are suddenly a 100% competitor to those other services I mentioned above.

    But personally, I don't think Apple is interested in that "loss leader" (large back catalog of "free" content); because their longstanding success with the iTunes "rental" model has taught them that they don't need to mess with that unprofitable bandwidth-sink. I think they will integrate iTunes Movie and TV Show Rentals into TV+, keep the price the same, and make hay while the sun shines.

    • The Studios are often the worse vs the Streaming Service.
      Lets stream Disney on Netflix. Oh wait Disney wants to make more money so they will make their own service.
      The same with CBS All Access.

      So some shows and series we may want to watch over and over again (or at least our family watches them over and over again) are available then they go away. Meaning we need to find what streaming service they went to and get an other subscription, and possibly cancel the old one.
      • by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

        So some shows and series we may want to watch over and over again (or at least our family watches them over and over again) are available then they go away. Meaning we need to find what streaming service they went to and get an other subscription, and possibly cancel the old one.

        Save money on the streaming and buy the physical media. Then rip it to a media center and stop paying a monthly rental fee on bits.

        • It wouldn't really save money. Hundreds of dollars for DVDs for a series, or streaming services for 1-2 years. Where you have access to more.

          To do it legally if there are a few dozen movies, and a dozen TV shows you want to watch you are probably paying for DVD/Blue Ray then you will for these services for life.
          • by bob4u2c ( 73467 )

            Hundreds of dollars for DVDs for a series

            Where are you buying your series from? Most cost about $20-30 per season, cheaper if you buy multiple seasons at once.

            Where you have access to more.

            More? More what? More stuff you don't like, more stuff you will never watch, more stuff you can never own?

            I own most of the movies and series I really care about, so even at $20 a month I can easily buy a season or a movie (or two if I watch the sales, four if I hit a local rental store clearing out their old inventory, even redbox just sales the discs after a few months). Then I can

    • All Apple has to do (and I fully expect them to do this) is provide a seamless gateway between Apple TV+ and iTunes movie and TV show rentals, and they are halfway "there"

      That's a great point... and they are already there.

      On the TV app for iPhones, you see the Apple+ TV shows, mixed with the content you can purchase. So for example I see "See", and "The Morning Show", but up above that are movies like Halloween, and The Nightingale, both for rent...

      The other interesting aspect of this is that TV is the App

      • The other interesting aspect of this is that TV is the Apple gateway for video content you want to see, so it shows you video content for other apps and thus can kind of present itself in front of other services...

        Google Play Movies & TV does the same thing, FWIW, though AFAIK they don't do any original content. If you have the app for some other service installed on your device and look up a show, Google will offer it via the other service first.

        My wife and I watch a fair number of movies and TV shoes via Chromecast, and it's pretty convenient that we don't have to search the other apps to see who has it. Not that we care that much; usually if we're staying home and watching something on TV it's because we w

    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday November 01, 2019 @12:41PM (#59369950) Journal

      But unfortunately, it seems that little of that embarrassment of riches ever made it to their Streaming Service.

      The streaming service never had as much as the DVD service, but it was quite good until the media industry started to realize that streaming was going to be huge. When that happened, they began charging Netflix a lot more, often more than Netflix could profitably pay. And in some cases simply refused to license their content at all. That was exactly what motivated Netflix to begin producing original content.

      Netflix has gotten much worse as a result, and I don't think you can really blame Netflix for that.

  • They can show the "I'm a Mac" commercials and all the Steve Jobs product presentations. They can call it the "When Apple was Apple" channel.
  • virtually every streaming service has an Apple TV app with their back catalogs. this is just to get some people to buy it over a Roku which has no unique content

  • I don't mind the Apple TV+ service as something that augments others, and lets be real, if you use an Apple TV on your TV you have access to all of the services that are out there basically ... from Netflix to Hulu and HBO .... besides apple's own service. But my problem with this whole thing is that as a user of the newest Apple TV devices, as much as they do work decently, and have a slick interface, if you use them a lot you do have to fully reboot them pretty frequently to keep them from suffering from
    • by Altus ( 1034 )

      Admittedly mine is a generation old but I have not found this to be an issue.

      More importantly, the service is available on most streaming devices and on the web for chrome cast

  • Yes, yes, free. But some of us will gladly pay for no commercials and better programming.

    What surprises me is that Apple usually shines at making deals with bringing hold-outs to the market. Coming in with shows like Night Court or striking a deal with the Canadian property owners of the shows of the 80s and 90s would be a coup.

    I grew up 20 miles south of the border and CTV and CBC were the only channels that could be bothered to put out signal enough to get shows on rabbit ears. The two American cha
  • I get Prime video for free because I pay for Prime for free shipping.

    AppleTV+ is free because I buy some new gadget from Apple every year, be it a phone, a watch, a tablet, a laptop, or an AppleTV every year. My 11 Pro that I have been absolutely loving (best phone from Apple since my iPhone 5, and I've had a 6, 7Plus, X, and XS) is covering the subscription for my family for the next 12 months. By then my wife or one of my kids might need a new device of one sort or another.

PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5

Working...