Is Apple TV+ worth it?

Kirk McElhearn, Kirkville:

Apple TV+ launched with a bunch of A-listers, and so far we have seen a handful of series on the service. I watched and enjoyed two of them – The Morning Show and For All Mankind – but now that they’re over, what do I do? I’m not interested in the other series, and, while there’s a lot of stuff that’s been announced, Apple has fallen into the trap of not having enough content to make its service worthwhile…

I liked what I saw, and it was free (well, I did pay a lot for that iPhone…), but going forward, I hope there will be a reason to want to pay for a subscription when the freebie runs out.

MacDailyNews Take: We’re going to take a wild guess here and say that when our free year runs out, there will be a lot more to watch on Apple TV+. Even if you’re paying, it’s only $4.99/month, so the answer to the headline is “Yes!” There are a lot of projects in production for Apple TV+ that will be arriving soon. You can see a list of everything bound for Apple TV+ over on MacRumors here.


  1. I’ve seen nothing overly compelling on ATV+ yet… sure there are things coming, but the product is not diverse enough and some of the shows themes for me are non-starters… So we’ll see if this really works or not… its still early.

    1. Apple’s usual strategy is to [1] do something different (not copy) AND [2] build on previous successes. It’s not [1] or [2]. It’s [1] AND [2] OR Apple says NO. So Apple won’t try to be Netflix and rely on existing content, that’s what everyone else does. Apple won’t profit through ads, or even through fees (initially), that’s what everyone else does.

      The way to be different here is only new exclusive content through exclusive deals with people who are able to create unique content (when given enough money). Don’t make it about needing profit from the service itself. Make it about providing another “very sticky” value-added service for customers, to motivate their future hardware purchases. Don’t play the existing game. Play the game with rules no one else can play.

      And the way to build on previous successes is by leveraging (as only Apple can) the ways content is consumed (that Apple controls), through existing screens of iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac, and Apple TV. Apple just started a few months ago; many analysts will be too quick to judge Apple based on the competition and the status quo.

      1. While I can respect Apple’s decision of not resorting to licensing existing content, I suspect that after the initial novelty and until a sizable library of original content that is of interest to the subscriber is accumulated, Apple will face the possibility of binge subscribers paying for a month every six and cancelling in between.

        1. You’re falling into the thinking of analysts who are experts in the existing industry. Most of them can’t think outside their existing status quo box.

          For Apple, if you want to subscribe, binge, cancel, rinse and repeat… “We prefer you not, but if you do, that’s fine. We’re happy our shows are binge-worthy. Look forward to seeing you soon, when you need a new iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV…” If you’re willing to binge, you’re hooked. Apple cares more about loyalty through continued future hardware purchases, less about loyalty through continuous monthly fees. Apple is not playing the same game.

          For Apple’s streaming media competition, for your same scenario… “Disaster!” 😱

        2. I think it would actually be common sense since Apple doing it the way they do there is no incentive for those binge watchers to pay for the intervening months since unlike the competition there is no content they would be interested in watching (or waiting for) over those months. I’m not predicting disaster, simply that those watching costs will do so and as long as there is new content that will accumulate in Apple’s library, those intermittent binge subscribers will keep coming back.

          For the first year at least, the subscriber numbers will likely be biased heavily towards those free 1yr subscriptions from new device purchases.

  2. Nothing comes close to variety and quality of content online of YouTube. Apple could spend its entire cash pile on Hollyweird-produced content and not create a fraction of what you can find there. Apple is one of the few companies capable of creating a better alternative (more privacy, less or no ads for a fee). They could certainly get their tech reviewer influencers to use the service in parallel to YT.

    1. Apple needs to keep it’s focus on building better software and hardware products free TV is profitless, those Tech worms are worthless to the bottom line if you don’t a good product to sell!

      1. I would have to agree. YouTube and other ‘free’ TV tend to gather viewer info and show ads targeted based on that data to generate funds for the service. More ‘profitless’ for Apple than the others.

  3. There is no profit in Hollywood that is on the level of what Apple makes in their core business and there never will be, Retail (not Apple), Hollywood movies, TV, and the food business is low margin when compared to computer hardware and software (OS) design to work as one under one house.

    1. A valve add is making sure your devices support all the video and audio formats available, a valve add is having the best hardware that supports the latest computer games for once on a Mac. Free spending millions on low margin tv/movie freebies is not.

  4. Personally I think it’s worth it. It’s roughly the same price as renting a movie or two a month but get roughly 6-8 hours of content (I enjoy at least). I like the Friday night release schedule as well (between the traditional Tuesday and Sunday). I cut cable 6 years ago and haven’t looked back as the options have steadily gotten better and imagine this will do the same. When you reach the scale of Apple why not continually solidify the user/services revenue when you can where there’s only upside in increasing stickiness to the entire ecosystem. I’m all for integrating hardware/software/content as there’s probably interesting options that’ll be available with regards to interaction/VR coming when they control the entire code to eye path. Just my thoughts anyways.

  5. At a cost of $60 a year probably yes. However I’m not yet very excited about the content at this point.
    For example if mankind lost their sight chances are that the entire population would die or be killed by predators. For all mankind is kinda growing on me but again the premise is odd since the history of the space race is quite well known and recent. It is peculiar to have a what if scenario with this.
    The number of f-bombs in the morning show is a bit ridiculous. Couldn’t watch the first full episode.
    Dickinson is interesting.

  6. Lemme see…Apple II, Macintosh, iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, Apple Pay, Apple Watch, AirPods—all huge successes right out of the chute, right? Apple has bought into the Chinese way of thinking; focus on the next century, not the next quarter or next year. It’s why they will be raging successes when all of us are gone.

    1. Not sure that’s any more of a benefit over other streaming devices if they all can access the same streaming services. The features of the remote and the visual interface plus system cost are the prime considerations at that point.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.