The latest J.D. Power TMT Insight survey of 1,745 U.S. adults conducted from December 16-19, 2020 finds that Apple TV+ now has 14% of U.S. video streaming market, up significantly from 10% in the company’s April survey.
To which streaming services do you subscribe or have access?
More than three- fourths (81%) of respondents said they subscribe to Netflix, the most of any service. Netflix has only 0.10 streaming problems per hour cited by users, the least of any service.
That said, for Netflix’s competitors, there is reason for optimism. Netflix’s market share declined four percentage points since April (85%), while five of its next six-closest competitors all picked up ground. Amazon Prime Video ranked second at 65% (down from 66% in April), followed by Hulu at 56% (up from 48%), Disney+ at 47% (up from 37%), YouTube TV at 20% (up from 17%), HBO/HBO Max at 22% (up from 13%) and Apple TV at 14% (up from 10%). Peacock, at 18%, had no presence in April.
Despite the warm glow Peacock is sure to be feeling from the initial market share it captured, it has to be concerned with reports of glitches on the platform. Peacock ranked highest among streaming services in problems per hour watched (0.19).
MacDailyNews Take: Apple TV+, which is, after all, only fourteen-months-old, is clearly making huge strides!
Apple TV+ is available on the Apple TV app in over 100 countries and regions, on over 1 billion screens, including iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, iPod touch, Mac, select Samsung, LG, Sony and VIZIO smart TVs, Amazon Fire TV and Roku devices, PlayStation and Xbox consoles, and at tv.apple.com, for $4.99 per month with a seven-day free trial. For a limited time, customers who purchase a new iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Mac or iPod touch can enjoy one year of Apple TV+ for free. This special offer is good for three months after the first activation of the eligible device.
There may be a high percentage of households with the service but there is such a small amount of content that people will not be using this t much. In my household I have watched 1 series and my daughter has watched one too which is a very poor return. If it wasn’t free I would be cancelling it.
Cuties (a movie glamorizing pedophilia while claiming to not glamorize pedophilia) was my last straw with Netflix. Don’t need that thinly veiled evil. WE canned them and guess what? My life has been just fine ever since. Amazing I know! Oh no, no Stranger Things! Big flippin’ whoop.
NOTE: California Democrats, always the party to push morality to tops of their list (not), recently pushed into law – and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom SB 145 – which, if a anyone within 10 years of age of a 14 year old (AKA a 24 year old has sex with a 14 year old), a judge can now decide whether to have the 24 year old register as a sex offender or not. In other words, hey, if the 14 year old has no problem with it, so it is deemed consensual.
This is called “grooming” people and it’s sick. Porn video producers in CA must be jumping for joy.
This is a push to completely normalize pedophilia, completely so. Whoever wants to think this stops at 14, I’ve go land in Florida to sell you that’s going to dry up any day now. Ignorance is not bliss, it’s just willful ignorance.
It’ll push to 12 within 5 years and 10 within another five years. It’ll soon be “love is love.” Have you seen or heard that stupid phrase before? As if the design of love can’t be twisted to evil. Please. It is all the time. Turn on a Dateline and it’s people killing their ex for “love” of their children in order to get full custody.
The end-game? Simple. Adults, parents, they can all have sex with children of any age. It’s just an expression of love right? Evil absolutely out in the open and being flaunted with this bill. And now the grooming of the American public has begun and far too few people even care…
Bright Spot: The day of SB 145 being signed into law, over 400 lawsuits were filed against it. Let’s see if the leftist appointed justiciary in CA overturns this sick law. Doubtful, but there is always hope.
And Netflix, you are the pimp pushing this crap into the minds people – you are sick – and that’s why I left you in the gutter, where you belong.
Your description of California SB145 is flatly untrue. The bill makes no—repeat, NO—change in the age of consent. Sex with a 14-year-old is still a crime in California, a misdemeanor or felony depending on the age of the parties. SB145 does not change that in the slightest degree. A 24-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old is facing exactly the same potential prison sentence under the new law as he or she did before.
Nor does it make a change in the sex registration requirement in the great majority of cases. Lifetime registration was already discretionary in California with the judge if there was a less than 10-year age gap and the almost 24-year-old man had penile-vaginal sex with a just-past-14-year-old girl. The point was to avoid punishing Romeo for a lifetime if he slept with Juliet. The judge had discretion to assess the circumstances and the relative maturity of the parties as part of the sentencing decision.
Except in one case. Registration was mandatory, not discretionary, only for oral or anal sex. Since nobody has ever heard of a case being prosecuted to conviction for solely oral sex between a teenaged boy and girl, that meant that the automatic registration requirement was being applied in practice only against homosexuals.
Unlike the 24-year old heterosexual described above, an 18-year-old homosexual was subject to automatic registration for having sex with his 17-year-old steady boyfriend. Even if they later married, the older spouse would be barred for life from decent jobs, most housing, and from becoming a parent. Judges had no way to avoid that consequence before SB145, which treats oral and vaginal sex the same.
If you want to argue against the law, at least make it clear that your objection is not to pedophilia (the law makes little difference in that regard) but to homosexuality.
Oops, omitted the footnote to my primary source:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/
Also got rid of Netflix.
At first it was that I didn’t want to pay for it as well as Disney plus/Hulu/ESPN plus combo.
But also it had poor control for adult content.
And it sounds weird, but the bloat of content is somehow less interesting.
And then looking back I think of all the crap available to people and I think the thoughtful curation of material vs nearly anything that passes for entertainment model seems safer and simpler.
14% based on basically nearly all free usage is pathetic. This is a ‘woke’ based service that has no programming for any ideology other than ‘woke’. For goodness sakes, peacock beat it out with 18% and it started 5 minutes ago… and it’s freak’n peacock, and doenst come free with every iPhone/iDevice!?!
I cancelled this thing and it’s a free service. Most people will cancel it the minute it’s not free. It is an ideological leftist black hole that is intolerant to any other ideology. As long as the vast majority (if not totality) of it’s shows stay ‘woke’ it will continue to suck and not succeed.
So it’s really only about 8%. Consequently Apple is in the range of AT&T if you don’t count the free users, and how do they count you if you have multiple services?
That would be a great survey to ask. What PAID service do you have, not just access to. I have access to many of these services, but do not actually pay for any myself. Peacock if free to any Xfinity customer. Disney was free offered from Verizon. Netflix was free from T-Mobile… The results would look very different if it was clearly asking if YOU paid, and didn’t just use a login or get it free as an add on from another service.
Going further and indicating how many hours of each of those paid subscriptions are being watched would make more sense in comparing which streaming services are valued over others.
What really puzzles me is why doesn’t Apple purchase more video content. How about adding plenty of science and tech documentaries? How about plenty of older TV shows? I don’t quite understand why a company with plenty of cash flow doesn’t simply spend more on content. Apple should be able to afford more video content than Hulu, Amazon or even Netflix.
I’m not complaining because I don’t use the service and it’s unlikely I ever will. I’m an Amazon Prime member and Amazon Prime Video is already enough content for me. I have better things to do with my time than watching streaming content. I’m just puzzled why a wealthy company like Apple is so cheap when it comes to purchasing streaming content. Apple has enough active devices to have a huge audience. All Apple would have to do is copy Netflix’s streaming content model to get more subscribers. Apple thinks original content is enough, but that certainly isn’t the case. That’s a very expensive way to go. Apple could also add cheap filler content to fatten its video library.
I’m curious as to whether AppleTV+ is profitable. If it is profitable then Apple should just continue to do what it is doing and not worry about how far it is behind Netflix in subscribers if market share percentage isn’t Apple’s goal. Only Apple knows if AppleTV+ is doing what’s expected of it. Apple can afford to give free trials, so what’s the big deal. AppleTV+ free trials aren’t going to bankrupt Apple.
Maybe it’s just me but the title just seems so misleading when you say “14% share of the market” vs “14% of the market”. The first implies a portion of 100% (revenue, hours viewed, etc.), the latter allows for households using multiple services.
“14% of the market” assumes that the totals add up to 100% when they add up to 386%, which means the average household subs to 3.86 streaming services (we sub to Netflix, Hulu/Disney/ESPN, Amazon, CBS, and HBOmax, but don’t have cable). I have had AppleTV+ and Starz but let them lapse when the shows I wanted to watch were done. ESPN is a waste because it doesn’t include Monday Night Football, but it’s free with Hulu and Disney.
it is really interesting
I want to pay only for one streaming service at one time. Because Netflix raised the price again, I stopped it, switched over to Disney+ (which is quite a bit cheaper), watched all the series (Mandalorian!) and movies I wanted and cancelled D+ after one month. For now I have only ATV+ (for free) and will join another streaming service for a month or two soon. And then I may go back to Netflix for a while. It is pretty easy to subscribe and unsubscribe. There is really no need to have two services going at the same time unless you have kids up to a certain age and D+ is (almost) a must-have.