Apple TV+ Isn’t Going Anywhere, But Still Needs To Improve
Severance ended its second season two weeks ago, on the same day that an article in The Information reported that Apple loses a billion dollars a year on its streaming service.
Maybe the timing was just coincidental, but I suspect someone at The Information thought they were being clever by dropping the article that day—or simply being strategic, hoping for extra clicks and subscriptions since they knew Apple TV+ would be in the news cycle as one of its biggest and most important shows concluded its widely loved and obsessively discussed season.
And it seems the timing worked. I counted at least 135 articles—many from major publications—regurgitating The Information‘s report, along with countless opinions being shared on social media and Reddit forums.
Personally, I didn’t find anything in the article shocking. It’s very common for new streaming services to lose that much money in their first few years. Peacock lost $2.75 billion in 2023, and Paramount+ lost $1.6 billion in 2023 before reducing its losses to $497 million last year. Disney+ only became profitable in August, despite having one of the greatest content libraries and triple the number of subscribers as Apple TV+. And, as every article pointed out, a billion dollars is pocket change for Apple.
But that didn’t stop journalists and thousands of people online from gloating about Apple’s losses, questioning how much longer Apple will stay in the streaming game, and wondering why they got into content creation in the first place.
That’s unfortunate because one thing I know for sure is that Apple really hates bad press and can be very reactionary—just look at their movie decisions in the past year.
Apple TV+ has its issues, and I’m as critical of their content and strategy as the next person. But at the same time, I think they’re still one of the strongest streaming services, with a well-rounded slate and enormous potential.
Based on how much they currently have in production and how much they’re still buying, I feel confident in saying: They’re not leaving the content business anytime soon!
Between their projects in post-production, the many shows currently filming, and the dozen or so series and films they’ve greenlit since the start of the year, they already have enough content to last at least two years—probably more. They also have their biggest shows returning and some of their most ambitious projects premiering either later this year or next.
Now, in three years, if they still only have four or five genuine hits like they do now, I could see Tim Cook and Eddy Cue pulling out of the content game. But I have faith the service will rack up enough wins to continue.
As someone who sells and produces TV shows for a living, I desperately want Apple to keep making content. They obviously have the deep pockets to fund expensive, high-quality shows for as long as they want, and Hollywood, in general, can’t afford to lose another major buyer of content—especially when there are far fewer networks and streamers making scripted shows compared to a decade ago. A $5 billion loss—the approximate amount Apple spends on content annually—would be felt across the industry.
Maybe I’m an anomaly, but I think their strategy of using Apple TV+ to draw people into their ecosystem might be working. Before their streaming service launched, I wasn’t a huge Apple guy. I only had an Apple TV (which I got for free from a studio for the holidays) and a MacBook. Since then, I ditched my Android phone for an iPhone and even got an iPad. I’m still a loyal Spotify user… but we’ll see if they can convince me to switch to Apple Music.
Now, I had plenty of reasons for switching to Apple—mostly work and kid-related—but I suspect there was some subliminal marketing working its magic on me. And I do love how connected all my devices are!
So, what can Apple TV+ do to change the narrative of being a “loser” in the Apple ecosystem and actually get more people to watch and talk about their shows?
I have a few suggestions below as I do a deep dive into the service and discuss how Apple TV+ can use its Severance momentum to keep subscribers engaged and happy.
Severance Is Apple TV+’s Most Important Show
Severance is pretty much a miracle of a show.
It’s a strange and hypnotic series—purposefully oblique, with a dense mythology and a constantly shifting tone. The series was created by a writer with zero prior experience in Hollywood before his show was greenlit… literally zero. Fortunately, he was paired with a talented producer/director with a highly underrated filmography. However, that director is also known to be difficult to work with and isn’t exactly famous for heady sci-fi.
Both seasons were plagued with production issues—COVID, strikes, a constantly revolving door of showrunners and writing staff, budget overruns—and I’ve even heard rumors that an entire second season was written (or at least a writers’ room was up and running) before Season 1 was even completed, only for all those scripts to be scrapped. That would explain why it took three years between seasons. Even the new room for Season 3, is almost completely different than Season 2.
But despite all of that, there’s no denying Severance is a great show. It’s not just a smash hit for Apple TV+—it’s a genuine television hit. It has consistently appeared on Nielsen charts since its premiere, Apple has released multiple press statements calling it their most-watched show, and I can’t remember the last time I saw so many people obsessively theorizing about every twist, turn, and Easter egg in each episode—maybe Game of Thrones?
If I were a betting man, I’d put money on Severance winning Best Drama at the Emmys this year. Unless, of course, some unexpected gem premieres in the next few months… or Emmy voters just take the predictable route and give it to The White Lotus again. Boo.
That said, I don’t buy for a second that the show has already generated $200 million for Apple TV+, as Parrot Analytics claimed in January. How is that even possible? The show is deficit-financed by Fifth Season (formerly Endeavor Content), which will presumably make its money by selling the show in territories where Apple doesn’t control distribution, syndicating it, or eventually releasing it on physical media. For Severance alone to generate $200 million, Apple would need at least 10 million new subscribers who signed up just for the show and then stayed subscribed. They could make that much off the show eventually, but not yet.
Still, Severance is undeniably a massive hit and arguably the most important show on Apple’s slate. Sorry, Ted Lasso—I just don’t think people are all that excited for its return.
Apple TV+ Has Already Fumbled Its Severance Momentum
Apple TV+ Had the Perfect Opportunity to Launch Stronger Shows and Bring Fresh Eyeballs to Older Ones
In my opinion, Apple has failed to capitalize on Severance‘s success and the influx of new subscribers who likely signed up in the past two months to watch it.
One of HBO’s greatest strengths for years was its scheduling strategy—launching new seasons of major shows immediately after others concluded. They also paired dramas with comedies, keeping audiences engaged and reducing cancellations. That approach contributed to HBO’s historically low cancellation rates—there was always something new to watch.
Yet just hours after Severance wrapped its second season, I saw countless tweets and article comments from people saying they were canceling their Apple TV+ subscriptions. That’s not great.
To Apple TV+’s credit, they did try to launch new shows and air returning series while Severance was running—but in my opinion, they picked the wrong ones, released them too late, or failed to market them effectively (both on and off the platform).
So far in 2024, they’ve launched:
-
- Prime Target – A UK show with no major stars and bad reviews.
-
- Surface (Season 2) – A series I’ve never heard a single person mention.
-
- Mythic Quest (Season 4) – A solid show, but after a two-year hiatus, it feels past its prime five years after its debut.
-
- Dope Thief – A well-cast, solid show that should have premiered sooner.
- The Studio – Which judging by my timeline people are enjoying, but my timeline is very heavily Hollywood skewed. Still should have been released whie Severance was airing!
You know what show would have paired perfectly with Severance? Silo Season 2.
Silo is one of Apple TV+’s stronger series and also one of its more popular ones. It’s one of the few Apple shows to make the Nielsen charts, though its viewership still lags far behind Severance. Yes, you could argue that Apple TV+ needed a big show to air during the holidays last year (since Silo‘s second season premiered in November), but I firmly believe the show would have been a much bigger hit—and taken to the next level—if they had held it until January or February. But maybe because its from an outside studio and they knew before it premiered that there was only one more season. But still.
What’s even crazier is that by the time Severance premiered, Apple TV+ didn’t seem to be promoting Silo at all. It rarely appeared on the home page when I opened the app to watch Severance. Even if they had to launch it in November, they still should have been heavily promoting it in January to capture the new subscribers Severance brought in.
You’d think the algorithm would be pushing it to me—someone who watched Silo Season 1 but hasn’t gotten around to Season 2 yet. If I had seen it prominently featured on the home page, had a trailer play before Severance, or even had it autoplay as soon as Severance ended, I probably would have watched it. And I bet a lot more people would have as well. But nope—like most streaming services, Apple TV+ seems to disregard past seasons of shows almost entirely once they finish airing.
Why not push viewers to watch Dark Matter or Sugar? Both are sci-fi series that were renewed and could use more awareness. They even feature big movie stars and received solid reviews. Shrinking and Bad Monkey could have used more love too. And they could have hyped up their big-budget anthology series Extrapolations… just kidding—no one ever needs to watch Extrapolations.
To their credit, Apple was smart to launch Dope Thief while Severance was still airing. But only the first three episodes were available after the Severance finale. That show would have benefited from launching earlier. Did you know that Ridley Scott directed its pilot? It’s only the second TV episode the legendary filmmaker has ever directed—yet there was barely any press about it. Maybe it was a bad experience, given that co-lead Michael Mando was fired early in production, requiring portions of the pilot to be reshot. But imagine if Severance viewers saw a short video of Sir Ridley promoting Dope Thief and talking about how much he loved working on it before an episode of Severance aired. My hunch? It would have driven a lot more viewers to check it out.
Apple also has the buzzy show Your Friends and Neighbors in a few weeks. They even renewed the Jon Hamm-led Your Friends and Neighbors before Season 1 aired. While its not the best tonal matches for Severance, if it’s as great as early reactions suggest, it likely would have benefited from airing alongside Severance—or at least been promoted.
Apple didn’t even release a trailer for YFAN until just days before the Severance finale. I get the strategy of spreading out releases and considering Emmy windows, but Apple would have been better off “burning” Prime Target and Surface last year—two shows that never had much of a chance of attracting a big audience—and instead do everything possible to boost their stronger, higher-quality series by airing it with their biggest hit.
Why not launch a trailer for Murderbot directly after the Severance finale? It’s their big sci-fi series starring Alexander Skarsgård, based on a hugely popular IP, and it premieres in May. These are simple marketing techniques that worked for linear networks for years.
I’ll give Apple credit for releasing The Gorge while Severance was airing and doing a great job promoting it on the platform. And shocker… it looks like that promotion worked. That film might be their most-watched movie to date. Crazy what good marketing and proper promotion can do.
Apple TV +’s Real Problem Is Too Many Fine Shows And Not Enough Great Shows
Disclaimer was my most anticipated show of 2024.
How could it not be? Alfonso Cuarón is one of the most influential filmmakers of my lifetime, and he’s a director I’ve always had a strong connection to. A Little Princess came out at a time when I thought I was over kids’ films, especially ones aimed at girls, but it still worked its magic on me and became an HBO staple of mine for years. Great Expectations was released the same year I read the book in school, and I feel like my entire sophomore class was there on opening night. Of course, we had to buy tickets to Spice World since none of us were 17 yet. Y Tu Mamá También came out the summer before college, and I must have seen it three times in theaters. Children of Men is a film I revisit at least once every two or three years. Gravity is a film I’m not sure I can ever revisit because the theater experience was so profound, and I was one of the few who got to see Roma in a theater—because there was no way I was going to see a Cuarón film first at home.
Plus, Disclaimer had one of the best casts of any project since movie stars began doing TV a decade or so ago. Cate Blanchett, star of my beloved Tár and countless other masterpieces; Kevin Kline, one of my favorites of all time, who I always lament doesn’t do enough; and Sacha Baron Cohen doing a rare dramatic role. There was no way this wouldn’t be great.
But alas, Disclaimer was the most disappointing show of 2024 – It is also the perfect case study of where Apple TV+ stands in the current streaming hierarchy and all the good, bad, and in-between that the service has to offer.
I don’t want this to turn into a review of Disclaimer, but for the curious, I thought it was incredibly beautiful to look at, with some of the best cinematography I have ever seen on TV. However, the story was incredibly thin. It was completely watchable, and I can’t say I was ever bored, but like most shows these days, the series was stretched out and felt three episodes too long. It was one of those shows where you knew a twist was coming, but instead of having to wait 2 hours like in a movie, you had to wait 8.
The story felt better suited for the kind of glossy and trashy limited series that Nicole Kidman likes to make, but Cuarón instead went for a pretentious and self-important tone, like he was creating one of those award-bait films that falls short and is never heard from again.
So essentially it felt like a majority of streaming shows.
What a waste of Curon’s incredible talent for three or four years of his life.
Say what you will about something like the Nicole Kidman series The Perfect Couple—and I’m not saying it was better than Disclaimer, but it knew exactly what it was. It delivered a great setting, a somewhat compelling mystery, ridiculously good-looking people, and great wardrobes, which is exactly what people tuned in to see.
But the biggest issue is that four months after its last episode aired, there is almost no one talking about the show at all! I have yet to find anyone outside of the entertainment industry who has mentioned that show in conversation.
All that being said, if Disclaimer were on Netflix, I do think it would have found an audience and would be talked about more. But that’s just the power of Netflix. Put a show with recognizable actors on the Netflix homepage, and 75% of the time, it will be in their Top 10 for at least 3 weeks or more.
Most people will say this is a marketing issue and that Apple doesn’t do enough to promote their shows. I agree with that to an extent, but I don’t think their shows are marketed any less than other streamers. However, it’s also hard for me to know for sure. I can say with a lot of confidence that I know when most Apple shows are being released, but that’s also part of my job, and I’m just the type of person who pays attention to everything.
Others might say that it’s because Apple has far fewer subscribers than the big streamers like Netflix and Prime Video. That is definitely true, but at the same time, Ted Lasso was a legitimate gargantuan hit and had more viewers than almost every show in all of streaming. Even this year, there seemed to be some buzz for Presumed Innocent, with ridiculous press releases touting that it was a hit, despite not having any numbers to back it up. Slow Horses is also a show that constantly comes up in conversation with my friends outside of the industry. So people definitely know how to find Apple TV+ and have subscribed to it at some point!
But those are just a tiny fraction of the shows they released last year.
The biggest issue is that Apple TV+ makes mostly perfectly fine, competent, good-enough shows, but rarely ones that are so good and exciting that you tell everyone you know to watch – ya know, like Severance.
And look… I probably watch more Apple shows than anyone I know. Part of that has to do with my job and the need to understand the marketplace. But I am also the type of person who mostly watches new content, and Apple makes more original shows than almost any other streamer. Some of you are probably rolling your eyes at that last sentence, but it is actually true.
By my count, Apple released 29 scripted shows, including mini-series, last year, plus five foreign shows. Nine of these were returning shows, so the majority were new. (This was just done with a quick Google search, so I’m not 100% sure about the data, but I believe it’s accurate). This also doesn’t include 9 shows that have been renewed but didn’t air new episodes in 2024, such as Hijack, Monarch, Platonic, For All Mankind, The Morning Show, Foundation, and Severance. Which is also a problem that needs to be addressed,
Of those 29 shows, I have watched at least four episodes of 15 of them since they’ve aired (some were during season 1), but I’ve only finished full seasons of 7. And if I’m being honest, the only truly stellar show out of those 29 was Shrinking (season 2 was great!). I am not angry I watched Sugar, Presumed Innocent, Manhunt, Dark Matter, Bad Monkey—they had their moments and were ambitious, but I can’t say for sure that I will watch season 2. None of those will make my Emmy ballot.
For whatever reason, Apple makes shows that I enjoyed to an extent in season 1, but don’t have much interest in watching season 2 (*Sorry, Bad Sisters and Big Door Prize). And to be fair, a lot of their best shows are the ones that didn’t air new seasons in 2024.
People can complain all they want about not knowing most of these Apple shows exist, but the bigger issue is that they aren’t being recommended by friends, family, or co-workers. And again, I think Apple makes decent enough shows, but even I don’t find myself recommending them to others. That said, I can honestly say their shows are a lot better than many of the successful series on Netflix and Amazon.
Do you know how many Amazon shows I watched last year? Only 3… so the Salke news wasn’t surprising to me at all.
It’s hard to come up with a solution beyond simply “make better shows”—which, having made my share of mediocre television, I know is a terrible and unhelpful suggestion. No one ever sets out to create something bad. Every project I’ve worked on, and every writer I’ve collaborated with, has always put in the effort to make something great.
However, Apple doesn’t have enough executives for the number of shows it produces, meaning many series don’t get the full attention it needs. They also tend to hire film writers for television projects—writers with limited TV experience and who have admitted their show started as a film idea. It’s no surprise that my favorite Apple TV+ series were created by seasoned TV writers with years of experience. Even Severance staffed its writers’ room with experienced TV writers.
Apple also has a habit of chasing movie stars and buying pre-packaged series, which often leads to underwhelming art. Ironically, and I know I am repeating this, their most critically acclaimed and popular show was created by a writer who had zero prior credits before selling the series to Apple. It stars mostly TV actors and a few well-regarded character actors from films.
Just because Natalie Portman brings you a project based on an excellent but difficult and uncommercial book, directed by someone best known for making a small indie film about Shia LaBeouf’s childhood, doesn’t mean you need to greenlight it just to have a movie star on your service. No one was asking for a Michael Douglas limited series about Benjamin Franklin.
Honestly, there were at least seven or eight shows last year that never should have been made. I could have predicted which ones just by looking at the loglines and auspices. Apple could have easily saved half a billion dollars—and then there wouldn’t be so many negative articles about them losing a so much money.
Apple’s Movie Strategy Is A Huge Mess
Apple’s movie strategy has been the bigger disaster, and only partially because of the movies they’ve chosen.
This has been written about ad nauseam in the press, so I don’t need to reiterate much. But essentially, the issue with their strategy is that they keep changing it, pissing off a lot of people in the process.
They got lucky early on by winning a bidding war for CODA at Sundance while COVID was still raging and helped guide that film to a Best Picture win in a weak year where people really wanted to watch a feel-good film. They’ve tried to replicate that success a few times, with films like Cha Cha Real Smooth and Flora and Son—nice films, but sadly they didn’t gain much traction.
Remember when Apple was going to spend a billion dollars a year on theatrical movies? So far, Apple has made around 35 movies, yet only four have gotten a wide theatrical release. It just so happens that those four films—plus Wolfs, which was supposed to get a wide release—are the ones that have been talked about the most in the press, and almost all negatively.
Apple is a company that historically doesn’t get a lot of negative press, at least not in the last decade, and it really hates when people publicly criticize the company. Unfortunately for them, people really, really love to talk shit about movies and television shows—especially when a movie flops at the box office.
I wouldn’t even call Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon failures. Both movies were criticized for making less than their enormous budgets, but I say—who cares?
Apple should be praised for allowing two master filmmakers to finally make the passion projects they had been trying to get off the ground for years. Both movies performed very similarly to other period films from their respective directors, so their final worldwide grosses shouldn’t have been a surprise at all. I could have predicted both within $25 million.
I’m sure Apple looked at the data and agreed to a budget they felt made sense or were willing to take the bet on. And with streaming, theatrical box office is only part of a movie’s true value, but that never seems to be accounted for. Sure, they probably hoped for a little more awards recognition and Oscar wins, but I can’t imagine they expected much more from those films box office.
Argylle was a bad movie that shouldn’t have gone theatrical. If it had followed the path of Ghosted or The Family Plan, no one would have written a single thing about it—though we would have missed out on some great jokes and memes from last year. They should have known it was a stinker and never brought in Sony as their theatrical partner. That movie needed to be excellent to perform well in theaters.
Fly Me to the Moon, on the other hand, was a good movie… that still should have never gone theatrical. It was originally intended for streaming, but after great test screenings, they decided to put it in theaters. But that was a movie that was never going to find a theatrical audience. Even if it had been released 30 years ago, it probably wouldn’t have done that well financially. It’s a hard movie to sell, and fans of those actors just don’t care about the 1960s and the space race. You know who enjoyed that film? My 75-year-old parents, who go to one movie a year. That was a movie designed to be watched after an episode of The Morning Show or that Brie Larson Chemistry mini-series. Again… Apple should have realized that.
Wolfs should have been released in theaters. They made the commitment, they agreed to the terms, it was promised to theater owners, and the actors upheld their responsibilities by doing press and showing up at Venice. Jon Watts was absolutely right to call them out on their bullshit decision to pull the wide release and say he can’t trust them as creative partners. That was one of the more brutal things I have ever heard a director say about the studio that distributed their film.
Wolfs was a fine movie that probably needed to be great, but a good marketing team should have been able to get it to $50–60 million domestic. But again, Apple got scared of the possible negative press, which had already been calling out the ridiculous amount of money Clooney and Pitt were being paid. Which, to be fair, was ridiculous and should have never been agreed upon. For all I know, the reported amount was wrong. That is a movie that should have had a budget of $75 million, tops, with backend paid if it did better than that.
Man, they really need to figure out streaming backend deals for movies. It would solve so many issues and lead to much better films. Just share the real data with movie stars—pay them pennies per stream, or give bonuses if people sign up for the service specifically to watch the movie. Just figure something out that’s better than buying out stars up front.
Look at Blitz, directed by one of the best filmmakers of the last decade. From what I can tell, it was never guaranteed a theatrical release, or at the very least, Apple never made a deal with a legacy studio to distribute it. Yes, Oscar pundits and journalists questioned Apple’s strategy, wondering why they weren’t taking it to festivals or promoting it more. But once the film premiered at the London Film Festival and received tepid reviews, no one really faulted Apple for skipping a theatrical run. It was simply a case of a great director delivering a fine—but not exceptional—film, and recognizing that the time and effort required for an awards campaign or financial success weren’t justified. And no one in the press really lambasted Apple for their handling of it—the film received maybe one-tenth of the critical coverage that their theatrical releases did.
The bigger issue is that it doesn’t seem like anyone is watching these movies once they hit the service. Wolfs made the Nielsen charts for just one week, drawing only 5 million views. However, Apple did have a nice success with The Gorge. That film was probably earmarked for theatrical release at one point, but from what I can tell, no distributor was ever brought in. I do know they tested it quite a bit. It was an okay film, but one that likely would have flopped in theaters, potentially damaging Apple’s appetite for theatrical releases altogether. I think they are purposely holding off on dating any of their major star-driven films in post-production until they see how F1 performs this summer.
But everyone involved with The Gorge walked away unscathed. If it had gone theatrical and bombed, Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy would have been criticized for failing to open a film—especially Joy, one of the most promising new actresses, after Furiosa severely underperformed last summer. Scott Derrickson maintains his reputation as a solid genre filmmaker and will continue to land studio projects. So, it’s a win for everyone—except for theaters and the theatrical experience, unfortunately.
What most of these films have in common is that they were pre-packaged projects assembled by talent agencies or producers. These films were shopped around with stars and filmmakers already attached, pitched to major streamers and studios with a simple message: “This is what we have, and we’re looking for a big commitment and a lot of money to get this made quickly—take it or leave it.”
And look, I get it—it’s hard to say no to packages featuring huge movie stars and blockbuster directors, especially when all your competitors are bidding. But this approach to selecting movies isn’t leading to great films. With so much competition for viewers’ attention these days, a movie really needs to be good—unless it’s on a service like Netflix, where people seem to watch anything, and decade-old flops suddenly get rediscovered by millions of viewers for no apparent reason.
But the biggest problem for Apple—and most streaming services outside of the top tier—is that, in the streaming era, viewers need a reason to open the app and check out what’s new. The way streaming devices like Roku and Fire Stick are designed, the order in which apps appear depends on when they were downloaded, and most people are too lazy to change the order. My own devices are a mess—I probably watch only 10% of the apps on my home screen, and there’s no rhyme or reason to their placement.
Netflix is the default for people browsing for something new. Hulu is where you go to watch broadcast TV. Amazon and Peacock have sports, which drive people to open those apps. Apple, with its limited library, just doesn’t have that curiosity factor—the one that makes people randomly open the app hoping to discover something new. Back in the cable TV days, it was easy to flip through channels and see all your options. Now, people don’t want to open multiple apps just to find something to watch.
But I do have a solution for Apple. I have no idea if it’s viable or financially realistic, but I strongly believe it would turn Apple TV+ into a much bigger player—or at the very least, significantly increase viewership and make their programming more buzzworthy.
Own The TV Home Page – Give away Apple TVs For Free To Everyone Who Purchases A New iPhone—Or MacBook.
For those unaware, Apple TV is Apple’s version of a Roku, but much more expensive. Apple TVs retail for $129, whereas most Rokus cost $30–$40, with some higher-end models available. I own both a Roku and an Apple TV, and while functionally they’re pretty similar, I strongly prefer Apple TV. Both devices of mine are about a decade old, so maybe I’m missing out on new upgrades, but at the end of the day, they both allow me to access streaming services, and that’s all I care about.
That said, I would never spend $129 on a new Apple TV if mine broke—I got mine as a holiday gift from a studio. But I do think it’s sleeker, easier to navigate between apps, and has great compatibility with my other Apple products. I have no idea why it’s so much more expensive than a Roku, since they seem to do the same thing. My guess is that the tech is more advanced/expensive and there are probably features I don’t know about. Only 30 million people have Apple TVs ( around the same amount as subscribers to Apple TV+) compared to 90 million people who own Rokus.
What Apple TV does have, though, is a home screen that appears every time you turn it on, showcasing all the new Apple TV+ shows and movies. It ensures that I always know when new shows premiere. It also tells me what’s coming soon, makes it easy to watch trailers, allows me to buy movies on iTunes, and even lets me rewatch things I downloaded on Itunes fifteen years ago and forgot about. Even better, it keeps track of all the shows I’m watching on other streaming services and tells me where I left off—it’s essentially a DVR. Except for Netflix, which doesn’t allow its shows to be tracked. But overall, it’s an amazing feature that I don’t believe any other streaming device offers. Hulu and Amazon shows are even advertised and you can watch with a single click if you’re a subscriber.
If Apple can figure out how to give away Apple TVs for free—or sell them at a price comparable to Roku—they would dominate the market and massively increase awareness of their shows and movies. No one with Apple products would continue using a Roku. The vast majority of people would switch over in a heartbeat. This seems like a much better investment and ROI then having to making a deal with Amazon to become a channel on their ecosystem.
Most consumers just want a device that lets them access all their streaming services and don’t care about the extra bells and whistles. Again, this might not be viable, and Apple may not want to make a cheaper product, but I guarantee their viewership and subscriptions would increase dramatically. If they’re willing to spend $100 million or more on a season of TV and absurd amounts on star-driven films that no one is watching, what’s the harm in giving away a product for free if it leads to higher revenue in the long run?
2025 should be a good year for Apple, but it could also be a make-or-break year—one that determines how committed they are to content creation in the long run. Hopefully, Vince Gilligan’s new show will premiere this year and is amazing, along with their adaptations of Neuromancer and Murderbot. They’ve also have cool-sounding shows starring Owen Wilson, Jessica Chastain, Dennis Quaid, Matthew Mcconaughey, Taron Egerton/Denis Lehane, and Jason Momoa. In the last few months they have announced new shows with Nicole Kidman, Ana Taylor Joy, Adam Driver, Amy Adams, Matthew Rhys, Annette Bening, Kerry Washington, Elizabeth Moss – And ya know what, most some pretty good – definitely more fun and commercial than a lot of their recent shows.
On the film side, they have a mystery movie from Goldstein and Daley starring Ryan Reynolds, a Guy Ritchie Fountain of Youth film with John Krasinski and Natalie Portman, and new films from Spike Lee, Jonah Hill, and Paul Greengrass. But their biggest bet is F1, the insanely expensive Brad Pitt racing movie that Warner Bros. is distributing. If that film flops and gets slammed in the press, I worry that Apple may rethink its commitment to theatrical films—or even movie-making in general.
I genuinely want them to succeed. I want them to make incredible TV shows and films. And I really want a streamer that’s committed to putting films in theaters. They just need to figure out how to get more people watching their content.
