Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Movies Apple

Apple TV+ Will License Its Movies To Other Services To Reduce Billions In Losses (bloomberg.com) 46

Posted by BeauHD from the time-to-get-those-numbers-up dept.
According to a new report from Bloomberg, Apple plans to license some of its Apple TV+ content to competing services in an effort to save money and spread its reach. From the report: Apple has hired an executive to license its original productions to other companies, a strategy designed to increase sales from its film business and improve the visibility of its content. [...] Apple is focused on licensing its movies to other companies, such as foreign TV networks and stores, where viewers can rent or buy them, according to a person familiar with the plans. The company isn't planning to license its original TV shows to third parties. (At least not yet.)"

Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and services boss Eddy Cue have pushed the team overseeing Apple TV+ to lower costs, improve the financial performance of the service and deliver more hits. The company has spent billions of dollars on original films and TV shows and has received strong reviews and praise from critics. Yet few of its titles have attracted a large audience and its streaming service doesn't make money. Apple has already started selling TV+ via Amazon in a bid to increase the audience for the service. Licensing to third parties will generate additional revenue and introduce Apple movies to people who don't yet pay for TV+. Since Apple TV+ launched in 2019, Apple has spent over $20 billion to build a library of original content. Yet, the streaming service only garnered 0.3 percent of U.S. screen viewing time in June 2024, according to Nielsen. "Apple TV+ generates less viewing in one month than Netflix does in one day," wrote Bloomberg's Lucas Shaw in July.

Ars Technica notes that Apple is estimated to have 25 million subscribers, making it "one of the smallest mainstream streaming services."

Apple TV+ Will License Its Movies To Other Services To Reduce Billions In Losses More | Reply

Apple TV+ Will License Its Movies To Other Services To Reduce Billions In Losses

Comments Filter:

  • "... master of none."

    Seems like Apple is trying too hard to be everything to everyone (silos, walled garden) and failing at a lot of it, instead of being excellent (which it's not, at least yet) in the few things it's truly good at.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sosume ( 680416 )

      It's a general thing, these companies are afraid to miss out on profit. Apple dumps billions into a smug streaming service that people don't watch. Google pumps the billions in their cloud platform. Meta did the metaverse. Microsoft, well, they did it all. As long as investments like these are done, small competitors will have no chance of entering the market.

      • Its part of diversifying your business and its often required. If you're a super focused but excellent printer manufacturer then your business goes to crap if people stop printing as much.

        We're kinda seeing that with Intel. Intel was king of the heap and basically made desktop CPU's with limited branching out. They did some SSD's and some other IC's and have started with some GPU's but they stayed very focused on desktop CPU's and now they're faltering and there's talks of them being bought out.

        • Yes, but diversify into something you have a chance to be good at, and avoid markets that are already saturated. Otherwise you end up as as the master of mediocrity. On the other hand, if you diversify by acquiring other companies that are in other markets, and you stand back and let them do their thing, this can work well. It fails if the masters of mediocrity decide to overhaul the company they just bought so that it also becomes mediocre. Sometimes mediocrity works, such as giant conglomerates of ind

    • I think Apple did a really good job of soloing off its services from people who don't buy iShit.

    • "... master of none."

      Seems like Apple is trying too hard to be everything to everyone (silos, walled garden) and failing at a lot of it,

      Finally, Apple is copying Microsoft!

  • Finally (Score:5, Interesting)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @08:12PM (#64958859)
    Apple TV has many of the best shows on streaming, on a service no one subscribes too because they've no idea how to market it nor do they have the junk filler many like drool out to in between better shows.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I didn't realize you could watch it on many Android TV boxes as well as an Apple TV. I assumed it wasn't compatible with my hardware.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mackil ( 668039 )
        Yeah I never even looked at it, as I just assumed, as an Android user, I wouldn't be allowed to by almighty Apple.

      • Even in the past it was available all over. However it was sort of the general attitude that people went with Apple if they already had an iTunes collection of videos, or Amazon if they were already Prime, else they just got a Roku... And that was the advice I saw on some review sites for the top three streaming devices several years back, because fundamentally they were all the same.

    • I purposely have avoided AppleTV because I just don't want to give that company any money.

      I have long been tempted by some of the shows and movies that they have on their platform though.

      I always figured that one day, when there wasn't any content worth watching on any other platform, I would hold my nose and buy an Apple sub for a while.

      I am glad that they are now licensing some of their content. It's a win/win. I don't have to pay them (directly, anyway) and get to watch the content.

    • Agreed - although as noted somewhere else, they're making "intelligent" shows, not the brainless crap you get elsewhere.

      I'd also agree they can't market this stuff - Ted Lasso should have been much, much bigger. It did fairly well for sure, but it should have been absolutely bloomin' everywhere. Some of their other stuff should also have been much bigger - that might have driven a few more people to sign up. But of course, Apple went and confused everyone because a lot of people think you need a dedicated A

      • Well, other services make intelligent shows also. I don't think Apple is above anyone else in that regard, except for Apple fans. Netflix has great original content; Amazon has great original content; Google has.. something.

  • That actually makes sense. (Score:3)

    by az-saguaro ( 1231754 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @08:24PM (#64958865)

    In the 1990's and 200's, I never quite understood some of the practices between Apple and Microsoft. They seemed like two pouty children hell bent on proving their own point of view, and refusing to share anything. That may be human nature when you are kids, but it shouldn't be for businesses.

    For instance, Apple built its reputation on being the preferred GUI and user interface for certain segments, like graphic arts and publishing. If what they offered was truly superior - and I am not arguing that it was or wasn't - but if so many users worshiped it, then why not leverage that advantage and sell it elsewhere. If IBM-Intel-MS users were not going to jump ship to Apple hardware, Apple could still have created a user interface overlay to essentially skin the Windows desktop and give users an Apple experience. They might have made a lot of money just on that software, and if enough users got used to that interface, they might come to see the hardware as interchangeable commodities, and Mac sales might have increased.

    The reverse was not possible, because Apple maintained, still does, a locked down walled garden. And, they have gotten away with it all these years because they have been highly profitable, even if much of their modern money is from phones and music. But now, one of their hopeful enterprises is hitting hard times. So, they want "to license its original productions to other companies, a strategy designed to increase sales from its film business and improve the visibility of its content".

    That makes sense. I cannot figure out why they never did so before, other than the "children in charge" mentality that they never grew out of.

    My wife likes her Apple phone. My kids used to like their Apple music services. I do not prefer any of their hardware or services - just my personal preferences - so I don't own or use them. I especially don't like them as a company or how they treat customers and users, especially everything they do to lock down their ecosystem and force upgrades and new sales instead of repairs, etc. - you all know the usual issues.

    But this one report actually makes me respect them a little bit - a sensible decision for legitimate business reasons, and one which makes their media properties accessible to a wider audience.

    If Jobs and Gates were in their 40s or 50s when they founded their companies instead of snot noses brats, I wonder if the companies and their practices and corporate cultures and the industry as a whole would have been much different.

    • Re:That actually makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nicubunu ( 242346 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2024 @01:39AM (#64959149) Homepage

      Apple could still have created a user interface overlay to essentially skin the Windows desktop and give users an Apple experience. They might have made a lot of money just on that software, and if enough users got used to that interface, they might come to see the hardware as interchangeable commodities, and Mac sales might have increased.

      Apple was (is?) primarily a hardware company, they made the bulk of their money from selling hardware, the software was only a gateway to selling their hardware. Making the software available to other platforms would have cannibalized their hardware sales.

      • And of course at one point they did license Macos. Didn't work, and they went back to Macos being Apple hardware only.

      • Except that Apple also made a better OS most of the time, to sell the hardware. Microsoft sort of acted like being just barely good enough was good enough. Apple focused on having a good UI. Almost every step of the way, Apple had better software technology than with DOS or Windows. Sure, there was some idiocy along the way, stemming from trying to be exclusive rather than compatible, but Microsoft had the same flaws but in spades. Especially in the days of DOS or Windows 3.1; and when Apple had OS X w

    • If Jobs and Gates were in their 40s or 50s when they founded their companies instead of snot noses brats, I wonder if the companies and their practices and corporate cultures and the industry as a whole would have been much different.

      There were plenty of Steve Johns and Bill Tates that were in their 40s or 50s in the industry, but they were comfortably socking away paychecks from IBM and DEC instead of gambling on a startup.

    • For instance, Apple built its reputation on being the preferred GUI and user interface for certain segments, like graphic arts and publishing. If what they offered was truly superior - and I am not arguing that it was or wasn't - but if so many users worshiped it, then why not leverage that advantage and sell it elsewhere. If IBM-Intel-MS users were not going to jump ship to Apple hardware, Apple could still have created a user interface overlay to essentially skin the Windows desktop and give users an Apple experience. They might have made a lot of money just on that software,

      So, there were a few things involved here. For starters, there were a few genuine advantages that Apple had in the early days of computing that made them the darling for media production. The Laserwriter printer was a boon to the desktop publishing industry; ironically the printer had a more powerful CPU than most of the Macs connected to it. They *could* have made it cross-platform (and I think later models did), but there was value in the vertical from a uniformity and a support standpoint. Selling a grap

  • The Doom Spin is ridiculous! Content, then License (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nadass ( 3963991 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @09:50PM (#64958957)
    Reading the other comments has me scratching my head because Apple TV+ (Production Company) is doing what any sensible production company should do: Start with building a catalog of original content which includes more than buzz-worthy movies but also developing a reputation and optimized production methods (persons and products alike). Then license out the original content which is premature to focus before the original content is built.

    Companies following a model like Quibi (hahaha remember them? assets acquired by Roku) did NOT develop high-quality content and were more valuable as an acquired catalog rather than a licensing venture. In their case, so much so that Roku only managed to itself license-out like 1-2 titles.

    Amazon Video, for their part, ended up acquiring MGM to fully bolster their content catalogs in order to keep their licensing dept busy! To this day we don't often come across Amazon Originals across other portfolios.

    So, again, Apple TV+ is trying something more balanced between production and licensing -- but approaching the licensing know that the parent company is worth TRILLIONS of USD so it's a worthwhile experiment that could only help their balance sheets overall.

    • Then license out the original content which is premature to focus before the original content is built.

      If people can get Apple content on other platforms, most of which will have more content than Apple TV+, then what's the purpose of subscribing to Apple TV+ which only has Apple's content? If enough of their content is available on other platforms, then I expect this to heavily cannibalize Apple TV+ subscriptions and Apple has to know this. To me, this seems like Apple is tired of bleeding tons of money

  • He really has been riding on Steve Job's coat tails the whole time. Apple TV+ is a complete failure that they have poured 20+ billions into and are losing billions. And let's not forget the Apple Car, which Tim Cook poured billions into - rumoured to be 10+ billion dollars - and spent the best part of a decade on this vanity project before pulling the pin, and it didn't raise a single cent for Apple. Then there's Apple's biggest embarrassment, as pointed out by Ricky Gervais, that they use slave labour in C

    • What are you talking about? Tim Cook took over in 2011. Go have a look at Apple's performance since then. No matter what metric you choose to use, Cook is killing it. Profit, margin, market cap, revenue... in his tenure Apple has become an absolute beast. You don't grow your market cap by 1200% by riding coat tails.

      If Apple didn't try and fail on some larger things, well... that would be worrisome. You would have to be incredibly short sighted to consider dropping Cook just because some hardware projects an

  • No, we need one streaming service to rule them all. Meaning: "we now have x+1 streaming services".
    What money grabbing excecutives fail to understand is that we have to pay for them all and we don't have that kind of money. The money grabbing excecutives do so they don't understand the problem. But the masses don't want Netflix AND Apple AND Spotify AND Disney AND Amazon Prime AND iQIYI AND HBO because they can not afford that.

    Meanwhile in the Pirate Bay...
  • Look at Apple TV+ the other day, nothing I wanted to watch. If I do see something, I can stream it for free elsewhere. Just like I did for the new Dune series 1st episode from HBO. On streaming services, you have to dig thru all the chaff to find good stuff.
  • Through various promos, I have never had to actually pay for it. When I finally can't get it for free anymore, I doubt I will pay for it and simply binge watch anything I want to see. The challenge is finding out a show is good; if you don't subscribe you can never watch anything on a lark and get hooked. Who knew Ted Lasso, for example, would be a good show? Maybe they should offer the first few episodes for free?

    Once they start licensing content, there is less reason to subscribe. Maybe they should jus

  • ...how much money they have wasted/are wasting/will waste on that absolutely horrible Lord of the Rings'ish production of theirs.

    Some of Apple's content is quite good, but that ain't some of it.

  • Slow Horses (Score:3)

    by 602 ( 652745 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2024 @11:34AM (#64959977)
    I watch very little tv but I'm currently in season 2 of "Slow Horses" on AppleTV+. It stars Gary Oldman and it is insanely great. No one I know has heard of it. Season 1 trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • 1. Apple's AppleID sucks. I got a 'free' 6 month trial from my phone company but Apple kept invalidating my AppleID and their 'support' was useless. I wonder how many customers they lost to those kinds of problems 2. Content. Although they have some awesome drama & Scifi they also have an overwhelming amount of touchy feely (some would say woke) shows that only appeal to a subset of people. So, their choice of audience for their shows is more narrow than most other streaming services.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Close