euronews.com
Apple TV+ Loses \$1 Billion Annually Despite \$5 Billion Investment
Apple TV+, launched in 2019 with a \$5 billion annual budget, currently has 45 million subscribers and loses \$1 billion yearly, lagging behind competitors like Netflix and Disney+ despite producing critically acclaimed shows like 'Severance' and 'Ted Lasso'.
- What are the primary financial implications of Apple TV+'s current subscriber base relative to its investment?
- Apple TV+, launched in 2019, reportedly loses \$1 billion annually despite a \$5 billion yearly investment. Its 45 million subscribers lag behind competitors like Netflix (300 million) and Disney+ (125 million), highlighting a significant return-on-investment problem.
- How does the cultural impact of Apple TV+ shows compare to competitors, and what role does this play in subscriber acquisition?
- Apple's strategy of acquiring high-profile shows and films, including 'Severance', 'Ted Lasso', and Martin Scorsese's 'Killers of the Flower Moon', hasn't translated into substantial subscriber growth. The lack of widespread cultural impact, despite critical acclaim and award wins, contributes to this underperformance.
- What strategic adjustments could Apple make to improve the return on investment for Apple TV+ and foster greater cultural resonance?
- Apple's future success in streaming hinges on creating 'water-cooler' moments and generating broader cultural buzz. The renewal of 'Severance' for a third season signals a potential shift, but sustained investment and a more effective marketing strategy are crucial for profitability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame Apple TV+'s performance as a "damning indictment." The frequent use of negative language like "disastrously wrong," "pouring straight down the drain," and "rubbish heap" reinforces a pessimistic tone and steers the reader towards a predetermined conclusion of failure. The article uses the loss figure prominently in the first paragraph, setting the stage for a predominantly negative narrative. Positive aspects, like awards won, are mentioned, but given less weight and appear almost as an aside.
Language Bias
The article uses consistently negative and dramatic language, such as "damning indictment," "disastrously wrong," and "pouring straight down the drain." These choices contribute to a pessimistic overall tone. More neutral alternatives could be: Instead of "damning indictment," use "significant challenge." Instead of "disastrously wrong," use "financially underperforming." Instead of "pouring straight down the drain," use "underperforming financially".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Apple TV+'s financial losses and lack of subscriber growth, neglecting to explore potential factors contributing to its challenges. It mentions several successful shows but doesn't delve into audience reception data beyond anecdotal evidence. The lack of Apple's official subscriber numbers is noted, but alternative metrics for success (critical acclaim, awards) are emphasized, potentially distracting from the core financial issue. The article also omits comparison with other streaming services' early years and their struggles before achieving widespread success. While these omissions might be partly due to space constraints, they could inadvertently skew the narrative toward a more negative portrayal of Apple TV+'s performance.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between financial success and cultural impact, suggesting that if a show isn't a "water cooler" phenomenon, it's automatically a failure. This ignores the possibility of shows achieving success through other means, such as critical acclaim, niche viewership, or longer-term cultural relevance.
Sustainable Development Goals
Apple TV+ invests in diverse projects, including those from renowned directors like Martin Scorsese and Alfonso Cuarón, potentially increasing opportunities for diverse voices and narratives in the film and television industry. Success in this area could contribute to a more inclusive and equitable media landscape, although the article does not directly address diversity metrics of the productions.