Apple tries to rein in Hollywood spending after years of losses

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s move to rein in spending on Apple TV+ after reportedly losing billions is prompting questions about whether its streaming service should be a profit center or a long-term brand and ecosystem play. Commenters contrast Apple’s relatively modest total outlay with rivals like Netflix and Disney, but note Apple TV+’s tiny market share, patchy user experience on non-Apple devices, and limited catalog make the current model hard to justify. Many praise its high‑quality sci‑fi and technical video quality, yet see broader streaming fatigue, fragmented content across platforms, and weak promotion as major headwinds for both Apple and the sector.

Apple TV+ economics and strategy

  • Several commenters argue Apple TV+ is a “tiny” business relative to Apple, with content spend (~$20B total since launch, ~<$5B/year) not matched by revenue or viewership.
  • Others note Apple can afford long-term losses and may treat TV+ as marketing or a bundle “value add” (Apple One, ISP bundles) rather than a standalone profit center.
  • There is disagreement on whether Apple uses it as a true loss leader; some say this would be unusual for Apple’s culture, others think TV+ is a special case.
  • Reported market share and viewing share are described as very small, raising questions about sustainability despite modest spend vs Netflix/Disney.

Streaming sector and competition

  • Several posts claim the broader streaming model is strained: high content costs, fragmented catalogs, subscription fatigue, and prices approaching or exceeding old cable bundles.
  • Some think Netflix has already “won” on scale and profitability; others say Netflix’s content quality is weaker now, leaving room for challengers with consistently strong shows.

Content quality and positioning

  • Many praise Apple’s sci‑fi and genre output (e.g., Foundation, Silo, Severance, Dark Matter, For All Mankind, Big Door Prize) and say Apple feels like “the new HBO” for nerdy/prestige content.
  • Others find the catalog thin, uneven, or not compelling enough to justify a dedicated subscription.
  • There is debate over the quality and faithfulness of adaptations like Foundation and Silo, and over classic authors vs newer ones.

Platform reach and ecosystem lock‑in

  • Confusion and irritation around Android support: TV+ is widely available on TVs/consoles, but there is no Android phone/tablet app; browser playback is limited (e.g., resolution caps).
  • Some see TV+ as ecosystem glue that raises switching costs; others think Apple’s hardware sales don’t need a loss-leader service.

User experience and technical aspects

  • Experiences diverge sharply by device. On Apple TV hardware and some smart TVs/Chromecast, TV+ is praised as fast, stable, ad‑free, and very high bitrate.
  • On older/cheap Roku devices and in browsers, users report glitches, UI issues, awkward logins, and inconsistent controls.
  • Apple’s higher bitrates are lauded for picture quality but may stress weaker hardware.

Shifts in viewing habits

  • Several report canceling most streamers and shifting attention to YouTube/TikTok/short‑form content.
  • Some see declining interest in traditional TV/film among younger viewers and emptier movie theaters, suggesting long‑term headwinds for Hollywood and subscription streaming.