Is Apple TV+ a contender?

[skaertus]

I was very skeptical of Apple TV+ until today. But now it seems to me Apple is really serious about this. The price is very aggressive at $4.99 a month, and offering a one-year free subscription for every Apple product bought... not bad at all. Disney and Netflix shares dropped today after Apple's announcement, as everybody seemed to be expecting TV+ to be priced at $9.99 a month.

I was also skeptical about the shows, but the trailers seemed to be indeed very good. I saw the trailer of See today, and, while the plot did not sound good to me, it seems to be really well executed. The other trailers are good as well.

There is still serious competition ahead. Disney+ is more expensive, but it will have tons of content. And HBO Max seems to have lots of content as well. But now I think it really has a chance at surviving in this crowded market.

 

[AJAAY]

It's all about the content they can acquire and if Apple Originals will hold a flame to Netflix Originals. I'll keep my eye on it. Maybe now Netflix will stop creeping up their prices!

 

[davcole]

No.

 

[2010mini]

It's all about the content they can acquire and if Apple Originals will hold a flame to Netflix Originals. I'll keep my eye on it. Maybe now Netflix will stop creeping up their prices!

To be honest, Netflix should really be charging $40 to $60 per month. They have the most content of all the streaming services. That content cost $$$$ for EACH market they stream it.

 

[Juicy Box]

If I am understanding what Apple TV Plus is (there is still lots of questions), I am not really sure why people are bothering to compare it to the content giants like Netflix and Disney+.

Anyone, please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like Apple's service will only have Apple's originals and no other content.

I know everyone is happy with the $5 a month price of the sub, but given the content of Apple's service compared to the content of Apple's competitors, $5 seems overpriced to me.

If the service was priced at the rumored $9.99 a month, this service as-is would be DOA.

Giving a year sub with the purchase of a device was smart, and I suggested Apple do just that on another thread.

There is still serious competition ahead.

I think so too, but I wouldn't include Apple as serious competition, at least not any time soon.

Disney+ is more expensive

It is just a little more expensive and looks like will offer much larger library than Apple. If you include all the content on the higher $12.99 tier plan, it is a steal.

I wonder if prices will stay that low.

 

[eyeseeyou]

It seems like apple TV + is trying to get into your rotation of streaming services more than replace anything existing, at least for now.

The disney plus package of disney umbrella content + hulu + espn pretty much covers a HUGE list of wants plus if you know what you like on netflix you might not completely give up your borrowed password.

Umm I've heard amazon video has some decent stuff but it's not my go to streaming service so I don't really know.

 

[TheIntruder]

If it has shows or movies people are willing to pay to watch (and not be left out of the water cooler talk), then it will be a contender.

Netiflix and Amazon started with others' old movies and shows, and no original content, which at least gave them a foothold. (Prime was very lean to begin with, so they also had to throw in fast shipping).

Seeing that the owners of that content could elect to stop licensing it (Disney being a notorious example) and yank it from their lineups, Netflix and Amazon had to invest in creating their own shows and movies, and built audiences of their own.

That's what Apple, and every other service which doesn't have a back catalog to rely on, is having to do.

Those who have back catalogs, even enormous ones like Disney, are spending to create new content to further enhance the appeal of their services as they launch.

Once they've got people hooked, expect prices to rise.

Another downside to this is that viewers may have to subscribe to multiple services to access all the shows they want, or acquire it through other means.

The real winners in all of this are the proven producers who have been able to snag big holding deals as a result of the bidding wars from all the services desperate to lock up content creators.

 

[shinji]

They need one show to a be a massive hit or at least get a cult following.

I watched a few trailers and so far, none of their stuff really interests me, but you never know.

 

[Juicy Box]

I would consider Apple more of a spectator than a contender.

I don't think Apple is even trying to compete with the other services, at least not at this point. They are essentially giving away subscriptions.

If Apple felt like they could get more for a sub, I am sure that they would.

They need one show to a be a massive hit or at least get a cult following.

It would take more than one show to keep me subscribed. With the lack of a large content library, there would need to be several good shows to keep people paying.

I liked GoT which was a massive hit, but I didn't stay subscribed to HBO all year to watch it the few months that the season was going on.

There was a few other shows that I watched on HBO, and would catch up on them when new episodes of GoT were airing.

After a GoT season ended, I would cancel my HBO sub until next season.

I am sure that there are many other people that did this, too.

 

[MrRabuf]

I think the price is right but, honestly, at least one of their shows is going to have to be GoT-level good for it to have a chance. I only pay for Hulu right now and I still have more than enough stuff to keep me entertained.

 

[shankar2]

Yes Apple plus library is pretty much empty now. Outside USA I think they are still giving movies on rental or buy via this app. IMHO Apple would have to buy a media company with a good content library. Or else they'll keep playing catch up to the leaders.

 

[nburwell]

See kinda interests me, but until I actually watch it, I'm on the fence. I wonder how long Apple will keep Apple TV+ at $4.99/month before raising the price?

I'll be taking full advantage of the seven day free trial, but I highly doubt I'll continue my subscription after that until Apple beefs up their library.

Right now, I don't see it as a immediate threat to Netflix. But perhaps maybe a year or two down the line once they have a more expansive library, then we'll see.

At this point, I do not have plans to cancel my subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu or HBO (I don't count Amazon since I pay for it yearly and I primarily use it for Prime shipping -- Amazon video is simply a bonus).

 

[s15119]

It's hard to tell. My educated guess is it will be a long term success.

 

[styymy]

Way too early to tell. All the streamers started out lean, licensing content and continue to build out their own libraries as current likening fees go up or expire. It's imperative for all of them to create and produce their own content. Apple will need time for this, whether or not it talks as long as everyone else, it remains to be seen.

I think right now Apple wants to insert itself within the market and build as it goes. It takes time to green light a script, cast, film, edit, make post cuts and release. This will be a marathon, not a foot race.

 

[Nigel Goodman]

There is an interesting article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/11/apple-tv-a-canny-way-to-compete-with-netflix) which suggests that TV+ will be a loss-leader to sell more hardware. Which seems quite likely to me.

 

[BJMRamage]

it will be a miss, however Apple will easily spin it as a hit because of the free subscriptions for new hardware sales.

They have a minuscule content library compared to other streaming services. They are putting lots of money into their shows so there is a chance that someday it will be a "contender" but for now, it will be a 'hit' solely on the fact that they are giving it away and the price is cheap enough for some to say why not.

 

[TheIntruder]

There is an interesting article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/11/apple-tv-a-canny-way-to-compete-with-netflix) which suggests that TV+ will be a loss-leader to sell more hardware. Which seems quite likely to me.

And yet, the article entirely fails to acknowledge that ATV+ will also be made available to Samsung TVs, Amazon Fire TV, LG, Roku, Sony and VIZIO hardware, and last but certainly not least, over the web.

That torpedoes "ATV+ is only meant to push Apple hardware" ship, if not sinks it.

The freebie year and low monthly cost (for now) are to help attract and build a user base. Same strategy used to get Apple Music launched, DirectTV Now launched, etc.

Apple has the most to gain from increased hardware sales, but the stories about this being a pure hardware play miss the side of the barn. Services like TV+ and Music are being developed as their own businesses.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

No, it’s a compelling price at launch but it won’t contend until the content garners the hype that some of the Netflix, HBO, and Disney series/movies have.

 

[Fred Zed]

There is an interesting article in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/11/apple-tv-a-canny-way-to-compete-with-netflix) which suggests that TV+ will be a loss-leader to sell more hardware. Which seems quite likely to me.

Well it seems to have worked for my household. Wife ordered one. Never owned an apple tv before.

 

[Spankey]

Pretentious and stale programming. I'm going to pass. Disney Plus it is!

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

I too am curious if this is just Apple exclusive content. Or will it have a big library of shows and movies like Netflix or Hulu? Seems like at this point it is just $5 for Apple exclusive shows etc. which is odd.

 

[Donfor39]

If Appletv+ reaches u.k. then I'll have a try-no more than that.
HBO Streaming app is the one I'm looking forward to.
Disney's looks fun
Unc universal-not sure t.b.h,

 

[JeffPerrin]

It's all about the content

^^^ This!

Seems to me Disney+ is scoring big with content. Prime is doing well too (Jack Ryan, Ms Masill, etc.)

So far, I don't see anything on Apple TV+ that really grabs my attention. And I'm not so sure they really need to be in the content creation biz in the first place...

 

[Rigby]

^^^ This!

Seems to me Disney+ is scoring big with content.

I don't know. Not having kids (who love to rewatch stuff over and over again), I don't really see much interesting there either. I don't rewatch old Disney or Marvel movies, and the only TV show that mildly interests me is "The Mandalorian".

Prime is doing well too (Jack Ryan, Ms Masill, etc.)

Yes, they really seem to be on a roll with their original content. They also have other great originals like "The Boys", "Carnival Row" and the upcoming 4th season of "The Expanse".

So far, I don't see anything on Apple TV+ that really grabs my attention.

One show I'm really looking forward to is "For All Mankind".

But at the end of the day you don't need to permanently subscribe to any of these services. You can just subscribe for a month or two, watch everything that interests you, and unsubscribe again. Ironically Apple themselves make that very easy with just a few taps when you subscribe through the TV app.

 

[kiranmk2]

Also interested to see whether Apple have done the usual 'bulk' licencing deal to get a load of general content in addition to their own programming. I suspect Apple knows that the iffy reports of their programming and low quantity of titles at lanuch will be an issue so giving it away for free with a hardware purchase will let them boast about 'subscriber' numbers which may well let them get more content and tempt more people to sign up. If the free period you get with a device starts to decrease (6 months, 3 months etc) it's likely a sign of decent numbers of viewers. If it stays at a year, probably not such good news for Apple.