Apple loses more than $1 billion a year to its Apple TV+ streaming service. Report Left and right deadline.
Since 2019, Apple has spent over $5 billion a year on Apple TV+ content and hasn't really shown it. The closest thing to the show everyone has heard is retirementwhile theatrical features like Ridley Scott NapoleonMartin Scorsese's Flower Moon Murderand the reissue of Brad Pitt and George Clooney Wolvesexpensive box office revenue (Wolves (Not released dramaticly) and a significant bomb.
Like all streaming services, Apple TV+ relies on subscribers to make money. Unlike other streaming services, it offers little content other than its own content. In other words, there is no back catalogue. For context, Netflix has around 300 million subscribers worldwide. Apple TV+ only costs around 45 million.
But the real news is this: the recent fiscal year, Apple It was brought With revenues of $391 billion, net income was $94 billion.
If you make $94 billion in profits each year, you won't lose about a billion in an emerging streaming service.
What makes this news?
Well, the fact that only trillion dollar tech companies like Google, Amazon and Apple can afford these losses. Other than Netflix, not only did they initially join the world of streaming, they are one of the most managed companies on the planet, and entertainment companies like Disney, Paramount, Universal – less than 20% of the tech competition continue to suffer the loss of whether or not they compete with these huge ones?
Apple is easy to buy Disney.
Streaming is changing everything, and we see the future with just a few streaming services, but entertainment holdouts are running away from streaming business and supply content to streaming survivors.
For over a decade, these entertainment multinationals have told you they are supported by one-legged stools called cable/satellite television. Luckily for them, the game was equipped to remove benefits from profits. Popularity and ratings were not important. If the network was included in the cable package, it was all important. Even if no one saw it, it was paid simply for being included. It is called shipping fee. For example, only 600,000 people watch CNN. Even less watched Disney Channel. It wasn't a problem. If the channel is simply available as part of a cable package for 100 million homes, CNN (Warner Bros.) and Disney have made more than $100 million a month on freight charges.
None of these networks (and dozens of others) survive on merits. Additionally, you cannot advertise income based on valuations. No one has monitored them, and now they only pay around 60 million households for cable television, with the number falling by millions each year.
Streaming is merit-based. People need to want to see your content to subscribe to it. You will not be forced to pay for poor content (and networks) through an exclusive cable company. The outcome of this new world speaks for itself. Only Netflix makes money. Everything else is either losing its property or even barely broken. why? Because their content sucks.
Apple desperately needs a back catalogue, so buying a studio like Disney makes perfect sense.
Streaming also has serious competition in the form of free streaming services such as Pluto, Tubi and Freevee. The amount of free content will just drop your jaw and grow bigger. Why pay a subscription fee to a streaming outlet or cable company when there are a lot at some commercial interruption prices?
Anyone who survives has no choice but to deliver the content that ordinary people actually want to see. This is very different from the Cable TV era that satisfies the customer, with customers intentionally being removed from the equation.
John Norte's first and last novels The time I rented, I'm winning 5 star rave From everyday readers. You can read the excerpt here Detailed review here. But you can get it Hardcover And on Kindle and Audiobook.
