Now that Apple is diving into the content business with Apple TV+, Annie Gaus for The Street wonders if Apple should “go full Hollywood” and buy up a studio?
Apple announced that the service will cost just $4.99 per month, much less than expected, when it launches on Nov. 1. It’s also offering one year free to customers who purchase any iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple TV.
To some investors, Apple buying up a Hollywood studio seems like a logical move. With $102 billion in the bank as of last quarter, Apple has the money… However, Apple’s cash hoard and relative lack of wholly-owned content doesn’t necessarily add up to a studio purchase, according to independent streaming media analyst Dan Rayburn.
The reason? Apple’s streaming plans — and how they fit into its overall business — are very different than those of Disney, Netflix, or other media giants such as AT&T’s WarnerMedia.
Rayburn noted that at just $4.99 per month, many users will continue with the service even if there’s just one or two shows that they like. And by fall 2020 — when some free trials will be due to expire — we’ll know more about what content is best or most popular and what areas, if any, could use further investment on Apple’s part.
MacDailyNews Take: Yes, Apple’s strategy is much different than most other players in streaming subscriptions. Apple is looking for quality over quantity. Think “early HBO,” not Netflix.
Those who can wrap their heads around Apple’s massive cash mountain and the company’s unparalleled ability to generate cash can clearly see who the winner will be. The most talented producers, writers, directors, editors, actors, etc. are attracted to exactly what Apple has and makes in vast abundance: Cash. The king.
Like bears to honey, it’s happening already. – MacDailyNews, January 3, 2018
Apple has the money required to catch up and even surpass all competitors very quickly and they can accomplish it without buying a studio or even production companies. — MacDailyNews, April 3, 2018
Apple TV+ is a hobby as they have no ambition to lead the TV streaming business but just want to boost hardware sales and ecosystem attractiveness.
People used to say the same sorts of things about Apple Music, which now has more paid subscribes than Spotify in the U.S. and on track to overtake them worldwide. There was a time not too long ago when this seemed unthinkable,
https://cnb.cx/32KNdX0
The difference between Apple Music and TV+ is that Apple Music could license all the music out there (well, just about). Imagine how Apple Music would have done if Apple had to produce all the content they rent.
Your observations are correct. My only point was, don’t sell Apple short. When Apple comes up with a new product, many people doubt it will do well, only to be proven wrong later. Remember Monkey Boy?
Apple should go “full tech” and fix the keyboards on the MacBooks
Apple has become an entertainment company that sells devices to watch its products on.
If Apple were able to prove that streaming content can increase their hardware sales significantly for at least a few years, then yes, Apple should buy a Hollywood studio. However, it would matter what studio they bought and I have no idea what the price of that studio would be. It’s just that with Apple’s ample cash flow, I wouldn’t think it would be that harmful to them if the studio wasn’t able to produce major hits. I just like the idea of Apple diversifying its revenue streams. It might help make Apple bash-proof from detractors.
Why should Apple buy a Hollywood studio, when it can set up its own Apple studio with no legacy hindrances.