Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Apple Targets Launch of Apple TV+ in November for $9.99 (bloomberg.com)
73 points by MBCook 62 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 105 comments

I will be very surprised if Apple manages to grow this into a bona fide Netflix etc. competitor. Disney's Disney+ / Hulu / ESPN+ bundle is four dollars a month more than Apple TV+ - with just Marvel, Star Wars, and Disney classics, I'd expect it to be a winner, but there's even more than that. What does Apple hope to offer better than even smaller streaming services like Crackle (Sony) or CBS All Access?

Amazon, like Apple, has plenty of money to pour into entertainment if they decide they want to. But if it's not profitable why should Apple keep spending on its own service? Netflix, though, is in the biggest trouble, I think; anecdotally people seem to think of Amazon and Hulu content as better-quality on average than Netflix. Disney is spending a massive amount of money on its upcoming original shows obviously trying to compete with Amazon or maybe even HBO. (And meanwhile who knows whether Warner has any idea what they're doing with HBO - look at their DC Universe compared with Marvel.)

In the end it's an amazing time to work in the entertainment industry. And to pirate media.

> anecdotally people seem to think of Amazon and Hulu content as better-quality on average than Netflix.

That doesn't match up with my anecdotal observations at all. I know many people who subscribe to and enjoy Netflix, a handful of people who watch content off Amazon because they're getting it for "free" with the Prime subscription, and zero people with Hulu.

You don’t know anyone watching stuff like Handmaid’s Tale or sitcoms during fall season without ads on Hulu? Hulu has close to 25M US subscribers. So your anecdote seems off too.

I do agree tons watch and respect some of Netflix. HN and other parts of web seem to dislike it a lot.

I'm not located in the US, Hulu is not available.

Anecdotally that Netflix is worse than Prime or Hulu doesn’t ring true for me or people I know. The only places this seems true are HN and some subreddits like boxoffice

I still don't understand why services don't attempt to bundle more. All my media is pirated, which conveniently ends up in a single app.

I'd probably consider a $10-15/AUD streaming service if it included all the music, movies and party-music-video playlists I need /in one app/. It'd be a pretty tactical move to bundle that all into a decent internet plan, too.

But judging by the TV shows my sickchill server and automatically nabs and pushes to my plex server my tastes would require 4-5 separate services and be in the range of $40-60/month, so I guess I'll keep doing what I currently do.

I don't imagine $15 for all that is enough to keep producing content, they'll happily lose you to piracy in the hopes of keeping and retaining a larger audience who will pay.

Why would any company lose multiples of what you pay them when you’ll easily start pirating anyway? You’re not who they are after.

I watched Apple’s live presentation with Oprah and other stars, and I was very enthusiastic about having another platform.

Since then, we got Amazon Prime for the bundled media (I had been on my brother’s business Prime membership that did not include video).

Amazon did a good job of integrating other paid services like Netflix, HBO Now, and CBS streaming. The user experience is actually pretty good, and the only hardware needed is a very inexpensive Firestick that our daughter and son in law gave us.

With no cable or satellite service, good internet, and monthly costs of $10 Prime, $15 Netflix, $6 CBS (for Star Trek), and $15 HBO Now, we have way more entertainment than we could every watch, and a reasonable cost. Friends who can’t give up cable are stuck because they are addicted to channel surfing the “news” shows, which I argue is a really unhealthy activity. No new and no commercials works for me.

No commercials? I have Prime Video, and every single episode starts with a commercial spamming some Amazon Original show.

One major gripe I have about these services is the non-transparent way they "disappear" shows or seasons from their collection. At one point all 17 seasons of L&O: SVU were available on Prime (in Canada), but now only Seasons 1-6 are available.

The dropdown still lists all the seasons w/ full episode details, but once you select the season, it says "No longer available".

It's obvious their goal is to phase out "third-party" programming in favour of store brand stuff. At a point, it's honestly just better to buy the DVD/Blu-rays of the shows you enjoy and put them on a Plex server.

FWIW Amazon Prime has been brutal about VPNs over the last few years, at least the ones I've tried. I'm still a Prime customer but even some Prime Originals can't be viewed in Europe and I haven't had much success with the standard (paid) VPN experience.

Apple, on the other hand, is happy to sell me anything from the US store and let me download or stream it anywhere in the EU when I'm there.

I imagine people affected by this make up a negligible part of the market, but I find it a compelling differentiator. Not that I'd give up Prime... in addition to the whole "ship to nowheresville" thing, Patriot[0] bought them this cinephile's loyalty for at least a few years.

[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4687882/

Amazon Prime, like Netflix, streams a lot of licensed content. Part of the license is about territory which forces these companies into policing VPNs.

Yes, but is it not odd that this applies to some original content, and that Apple apparently views things differently?

It is considered a privilege for Apple to distribute your app, while Netflix pays to distribute your media. It would surprise me if the block didn’t happen with the complete service, original or not.

> Analysts have suggested Apple TV+ could top 100 million subscribers in the next half-decade, which would make it a major challenger to Netflix and Amazon.

Doesn't Prime have 100 million US subscribers now? And Netflix is something like 60 million. I guess these analysts predict they'll both stagnate while Apple will grow from 0 to 100 million in 5 years?

Prime is an odd one though since nobody subscribes to Prime Video specifically, it’s a value add included with their Prime membership. Is it fair to compare that number to Netflix or Apple TV when they’re both stand alone products?

I know this is just for the US but just to clarify. The Prime Video included in your Prime subscription is only available in a few countries (US, DE, GB,...) all other countries have primevideo.com which is a stand-alone video only subscription.

I'm in India and we use primevideo.com. It does come as part of the Amazon Prime subscription.

That may be because Amazon Prime doesn't make sense in some countries. Example: Free two day delivery doesn't make sense if you can expect free/cheap next-day delivery from local webshops.

Other Amazon Prime benefits requires that Amazon have a local presence in your country or area, so it makes sense that it's limited to countries where Amazon at least have distribution centers.

Just to add to your comment, Amazon Prime also doesn't make sense in countries with a fairly poor Amazon presence / high shipping costs. E.g. Canada.

I'm in Canada (lower mainland) and have Prime. The free same/next day shipping makes it worth it for us. We don't order a ton, but probably 15-20 times per year is enough to justify it.

It also makes sense because primevideo.com looks like it was built from scratch and isn’t integrated in the “normal” Amazon.tld that’s not available in a lot of countries. It was very buggy in the beginning and incrementally got improved, they probably couldn’t move that fast if it was integrated into the main site too.

> Prime is an odd one though since nobody subscribes to Prime Video specifically

Speak for yourself. I live outside the US, and can't get any Amazon Prime or free delivery.

I subscribe to Amazon Prime Video for The Grand Tour and other Amazon exclusive video-content.

Yes, it's a small catalogue, but 4K Prime costs me 1/3 of what 1080p Netflix costs, so I'm OK with that.

Fair enough, I was actually unaware that you could subscribe to prime separately, but it makes sense. Either way, the GP did mention specifically "100 million US subscribers", in which case those are all people who get it for free with their Prime subscription, compared to Netflix who are people subscribing specifically for the content.

They may do what they did with a certain U2 album and automatically give all their users a free subscription for 3 months and then go - hey look we have all these subscribers. That way they could technically say they have millions of users of which, many will translate into subscribers. More so if they bundle in some other services and piggyback that, ala Amazon's approach with prime subscribers.

I'm always bothered by the "either/or" framing. Who only subscribes to a single streaming service? A trend I could set though (and I'm doing this myself) is the locust approach to streaming. You subscribe to a streaming service. Watch everything you want and then unsubscribe. Then you move on to the next and come back to each every few months or so. I don't think one more streaming service is gonna paint the envelope here.

> Who only subscribes to a single streaming service?

This was the whole attraction of Netflix - it was a single service that got you most of what you wanted. Now there's Netflix, Stan, Amazon, Disney Channel, etc.

A few do what you're describing here. One of our friends switches back and forth between Netflix and Stan every three months. But more and more of my friends who were perfectly happy to pay for 1-2 streaming services are going back to good old torrents because none of the streaming services offer a good value proposition any more.

Netflix really never had close to everything though. When it was discs, sure. The streaming though was always pretty sparse. I know I ended up frequently buying shows on Amazon. That's how I watched Breaking Bad, most Curb seasons, Better Call Saul, The Americans to make a few. To me what really changed is that there now are more shows than ever that are available with a subscription at all and more shows that are exclusive to a single streaming provider.

> But more and more of my friends who were perfectly happy to pay for 1-2 streaming services are going back to good old torrents because none of the streaming services offer a good value proposition any more.

I pay for both Amazon Prime and Netflix yet I find the value proposition of torrents better.

It happens quite often that I later on discover that some TvShow I'm watching through torrents is available in Amazon Prime. This is what happens when torrent websites have less Ads than services one pays for.

For torrents, I just download whole TvShows (all seasons), watch them, and that's it.

It has happened a couple of times that Netflix or Prime remove a TvShow while I'm in the middle of watching it, or that they have all seasons except for the last one.

Also, the Netflix app on the Apple TV is now super crippled. Netflix removed support to play to an Apple TV from an iphone earlier this year, etc.

The offer of TvShows, Movies, etc. in Amazon Prime sucks. You have to buy most of the stuff on top of the subscription, and when you do buy it, you still get Ads. The offer of Movies in Netflix is better, but kind of sucks as well. There are a lot of "Made by Netflix" movies that just prove that throwing money at a problem not always solves it.

I will probably continue to pay for Prime because of deliveries, but Netflix doesn't make much sense anymore. Our money would be better spent paying for something like HBO, or going out for dinner once per year.


All in all, torrents don't break my balls. They are simpler and less annoying to use, work overall better, have a larger offer, I can watch them with bad connectivity after the fact (e.g. planes, trains, buses, etc.).

I'll gladly pay for a service that is as good as what I get for free. Hell, I'm paying for multiple services that are worse in many ways. We already have two Apple TV devices at home, if Apples' subscription service becomes better than Netflix, we will switch. Last time I checked, Apple's service was way worse than Netflix.

It is sad to compare all this mess with Music. I use spotify and soundcloud, and am very happy with both. I have Prime Music, never used it. Since I have spotify it has never occured to me to use torrents for music either.

> This was the whole attraction of Netflix

Yes, but everyone (including Netflix, analysts, and every observer with two brain cells to rub together) new that was temporary, and it started breaking down when Blockbuster started aggressively bidding for exclusives for their streaming service.

Netflix having everything was only going to happen as long as everyone else was standing back to see if Netflix could prove streaming a viable market worth competing for.

True, but sadly all Netflix proved was that streaming everything was a viable market, not that everyone streaming their own content on competing silos was a viable market. And now the pie is in too many slices and nobody wants to buy it.

> And now the pie is in too many slices and nobody wants to buy it.

And yet the total number and $ value of streaming subscriptions sold in the market is going up as more options emerge, not down.

Well yeah, the market is still expanding rapidly. That doesn't mean the value to each individual customer isn't diminishing.

But it can mean that and, in the case of Disney+ it does mean that. Content that was (and some still is) avaliale on Netflix UK will now be moved to Disney's new subscription platform. In this case, Netflix lost value for anyone that used to consume this content there.

With more subscriptions, they will steal or claim content from existing ones, effectively driving their value down. Sure some will create content, as they have been doing for a while now but that doesn't change the fact that if I want to watch The Office, I used to have to use a VPN to watch it through Netflix US, now it's on Amazon Prime but where will it be in 2 years?

Many, many people are currently paying $100+ for TV per month. I don’t see why they would stop just because it’s a few different websites now.

> This was the whole attraction of Netflix - it was a single service that got you most of what you wanted. Now there's Netflix, Stan, Amazon, Disney Channel, etc.

It wasn't. Netflix's selection was never, ever comprehensive, it just used to be focused a bit more tightly on 18 - 35 males than it is today.

And Netflix subscriptions never replaced other sources for the vast majority of their subscribers - the majority of Netflix subscribers in all major Western territories are also subscription satellite or cable subscribers.

Cable cutting was always a very, very minority pursuit, and HN is a massive bubble about it.

Switching frequently between service is exactly what the companies don't want. I agree that this might be where we're headed, but the idea of a subscription is to have a recurring and predictable stream of income.

The best solution for the content industry as a whole would be to set up a clearing house, that provides access to all movies and series, streaming services should then be able to purchase the content they want on their service. That would allow the services to compete on the quality of their service, not their catalog. Let's face it consumers don't care if Star Wars is created by Disney or Warner Bros or that Breaking Bad is distributed by Sony.

Given exclusivity is very provably a huge revenue driver any CEO who did such a thing would rightly get the sack immediately.

So, who gets to be this tollbooth for all content?

Much like Apple Music, Apple TV plus will leverage a large contingent of people who have no streaming TV subscription but do have iDevices.

Before the introduction of Apple Music it seemed like Spotify/Deezer/Tidal/Pandora/Google Music had the market divvied up pretty well, but because every time you tapped the 'Music' app your iPhone would nag you with 'would you like to try Apple Music?' a lot of people signed up, and Apple Music subscriber count shot up.

Did anyone think Tidal, Google Music, Pandora, Deezer has significant market share? Deezer and Pandora probably had a couple of million each. Combined they didn’t have that much. Pandora also wasn’t the same as it was just radio. Tidal hasn’t ever had many subscribers.

Spotify was the main and only thing around with MOG/Beats being a much smaller competitor alongside a few others like Napster/Rhapsody and Rdio before it went defunct.

This is unlike tv streaming which is more diversified and Apple can’t come in and give you everything like how it was with music.

Well, there you have it. Back to paying $100/month for tv/video

If internet was 50 of that you would have to be subscribed to 5 of these to pay that much. That seems like way more than I've ever had since cord cutting. On top of that it's highly likely people will drop one or two a lot more easily when their current fav show is done.

I think there is a large portion of people who already have netflix and a streaming music service. A good portion of those already have Prime as well. I'd imagine most cord cutters would be comfortable doing 2 video+1 music.

I do $15 for netflix (4k, allows 4 streams. mom & bro use extra). I use Youtube Premium as it provides the best value to me (access to google play music & ad-free youtube/originals). That is another $11. I'd love to have CBS All-Access but thats not happening just for Star Trek. Maybe they will be changing their service after the CBS/Viacom merger which would give them a HUGE back catalog of good snack content to appease subscribers as they grow their originals.

The new disney+ bundle (with Hulu ad supported, and espn is $15 i think). Unbundle is $7.

Then you have HBO Max coming which should be AT LEAST $15 (the current price of HBO go).

I'd bet there will be a new crackdown on account sharing with these services to maximize subscriber count. Piracy is going to be coming back in a big way. Access to a friends PLEX account is gonna be the new happiness.

They should’ve bundled this into Apple Music or at the very least made it a $5 upcharge to bundle the two.

I rather have the second option.

Amazon Prime went up around the time they bundle their online streaming. IIRC.

I'd like to have more choices and if I wanted a service or not.

The current rumors point to Disney+ being fully interoperable with a Apple’s ecosystem (Apple TV channels, launching on Apple’s platforms, etc), and not interoperable with Amazon’s platform or devices.

I’m curious whether Apple has worked out a Disney bundle.

$10/mo seems high for their initial launch.

> The current rumors point to Disney+ being fully interoperable with a Apple’s ecosystem (Apple TV channels, launching on Apple’s platforms, etc), and not interoperable with Amazon’s platform or devices

What I heard (and I thought it was announcement, not mere rumour) was that Disney+ was actively working to be available not only on Amazon devices, but actually as an add-on in Prime video the same way HBO Now and a number of other streaming services that are also standalones are.

Actually Gizmodo and Engadget are reporting this as well. Amazon is the only media device company that Disney+ isn't launching on.

Don't Amazon have the only kid-friendly tablets? Seems weird to exclude them.

I guess a lot of families also have iPads that they get for their kids, I see them relatively frequently in restaurants etc.

Well there seems to be a lot of negativity tomwards this launch. 9.99 seems reasonable, and their lineups of originals sound pretty good. I’d rather pay $10 for this than Netflix to be honest which has tons of content most of which is absolutely terrible. Between hbo and Apple, I could have an amazing lineup of shows and movies for $22/month. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I for one am excited about this and will probably subscribe. I spend a heck of a lot more than 120/year on a lot of random stuff that doesn’t provide nearly the value of this.

The Apple originals aren't out yet so why do say it's an amazing lineup? While not everything is a hit Netflix does have solid original content but Apple is not a content company. I'm taking more of a wait and see approach here. Good content is not easy.

Yeah, all we have so far is the names attached and a few words said on a big stage. We know very little about the shows, and obviously the people working on it will try to make it sound as good as they can. If I had a penny for every time some actor hyped up a movie or show that ended up being awful...

And I agree, Netflix goes for a wider breadth, but they have a significant number of quality and original content. Shows like Maniac, Our Planet, Russian Doll, Master of None, Ozark, Stranger Things, American Vandal and so on. There's something on there for everyone, and enough that you're never out of shows to watch.

I invest a lot of time with netflix and watch everything possible (tv series wise). I'm down to a handful of series but I'm ignoring certain categories (superheros, kids, teen and period pieces, some cooking/gameshows).

I find the libruary is getting thinner. Quality shows produced outside of netflix are disappearing and no new replacements. Popular netflix shows are cancelled or the next season takes 1.5 years. Seasons are usually the minimum (10 shows or less).

Not sure netflix is going to win in the content war and may lose in the usability arena when other providers start launching have better browsing experiences.

Two under the radar shows: Bruno and Brownsville

I agree that a lot of shows are cut off after 2-3 seasons, and that there are fewer external shows, but I disagree that there's no replacement. There are so many new shows added every week or month. Sure most of it may not appeal to you directly, but generally I've found that there's at least 2-3 good new shows/specials/movies per month for me.

Again, most of the shows I named in my previous post were from the last year alone. It is sometimes hard to find good stuff though in the huge pile of shows.

>Good content is not easy.

Especially when the scuttlebutt is that they're not going to be doing anything more risque than PG-13. It's true that not every good TV show needs constant swearing and gore and T&A to be good, but artists need the freedom to push envelopes. Apple TV+ is likely going to be as bland and generic as a friday night broadcast TV lineup.

> I’d rather pay $10 for this than Netflix to be honest which has tons of content most of which is absolutely terrible.

Based on Apple’s previous forays into this space, I’m not sure it’s a given that the content will be better than what Netflix offers.

Yeah I think this is speculation on OP's part.

We can just all wait and see.

Add Disney+ / ESPN / Hulu for $14 and you’re still cheaper than a traditional cable bundle and get way better selection. Amazon Prime is an option too. I think the modern era of streaming services is great.

Agreed. I pay for prime anyway, so with prime in the mix you have an incredible amount to choose from.

People do seem to have odd opinions about what something is worth to them. Yes, I'd rather pay $5 than $10. Obviously. That's not the question.

The question is whether it's worth $10, and that's on a par with what other services cost. It will depend primarily on their content, and to some lesser degree how easy it is to use. (Apple has an amazing, if unreliable, talent for hitting a sweet spot in feature levels.)

I would be excited if something aggregated this experience. For now it's really fragmented, and I will likely be canceling my subscriptions and going back to the dark ages if that problem worsens with Disney and Apple entering the over crowded market. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Netflix has a wide range of amazing originals. I could probably list close to a dozen. And that’s without digging deeper. No way Apple will be close to Netflix at launch.

We need this space to become so fragmented that, in its final phase, you end up paying the copyright holder directly... just need to find a way to make the process easy for the user

I don't get why they don't just slowly ramp up this model to figure out how and if it works. I assume Netflix has troves of data on viewer preferences and what types of shows would work. Apple is just dumping half of Netflix's budget blindly into a bunch of shows.

I’m not sure that the data processing is an absolute winner. It quite often results into “more from the same” and disable the ability to generate masterpieces.

Maybe the humanity is not ready to be hooked into an entertainment computer that generates the infinite amount from the stuff that people like. Maybe there’s still space for artists and creative people.

I suppose they know what people buy in the iTunes Store. That’s something.

I woulds say that people buying things in itunes stores is << Netflix views and ratings.

Why? When people buy things in the iTunes Store it means they think it's actually worth money. Once you have a Netflix subscription, watching shows there is free, so views is a signal of interest but not a great signal of whether the viewer meaningfully values the show.

Lots of diversity with who watches Netflix. Not as much with iTunes visual media buying.

What's your source on diversity of people who buy things on iTunes?

Just anecdotally I know about 0 people who buy things off iTunes, and maybe 20-30 people who watch Netflix regularly. Just because 1 out of 100 people spend $5 to buy something on iTunes in a blue moon does not make the data source any stronger than say 100 episodes watched on Netflix in the same period, not to mention voluntary thumb ups/downs.

I will be canceling Netflix in November.

But it will be in favor of Disney+, not AppleTV+.

All they have to do is put the Helvetica documentary in and they'll make a fortune!

I joke, the whole thing of paying 100/mo for a cable provider versus 10/mo for Netflix is slowly catching up. I already have 4 subscriptions that are nearing to half the local cable offering (albeit Australia is chock full of ads), and more are coming?

It will be an interesting space to watch over the next few years.

Because they already know if and, to a certain extent, how it works: “if”: yes, “how”: throw lots of money at original content as a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) requirement. That's been proven already.

There's no toe dangling opportunity unless you can completely own a niche and scale up, and even that would be a relatively unproven approach.

There was a time when people were impressed by Netflix's data-driven commissioning [1] which let them commission House of Cards without even seeing a pilot episode, because their data told them a gritty political thriller with Kevin Spacey was a sure winner.

This is what chrischen means by "I assume Netflix has troves of data on viewer preferences and what types of shows would work."

Compared to a few years ago the praise of Netflix no longer seems so effusive - whether because Netflix's stream of winning shows has dried up, or because hiring Kevin Spacey no longer seems so clever.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/23/netflix-viewer...

It doesn't say $6 billion pa. Just that it has commitments to that effect. Might well be $6 billion over three years.

Which is a seventh of Netflix's spend. The streaming market is spend big or go home, and to be honest the biggest issue Apple has is that investment seems rather small so far.

Creating good movies/series is far more than just having a lot of user preference data. Hollywood has been doing this for decades and still most movies fail. Netflix has had some good hits and some duds. Apple might, but data isn't very valuable.

I knew this would be coming eventually, I just expected it 10 years ago, not now. The one non-subscription device I own finally goes subscription.

They are so late to the game. Just yesterday there were articles here about subscription fatigue. After GoT ended, I dumped everything except a minimal Hulu subscription, and I'm starting to wonder why I'm keeping that around.

I have a lot of questions about this, including how they plan to sell me on their subscription model, which will clearly compete with the backlog of shows and movies that were already bought on iTunes at a price they were notorious for commodotizing, in addition to the other streaming services that they offer over their own hardware (Hulu, Netflix, HBO, CBS), all of which have their own content monopolies. The one thing that might do it for me is if they managed to get a monopoly on BigTen Network, that would get them a dedicated customer for 6 or 7 months out of the year, depending on how the season goes.

I know Apple had some history with Disney (well, Steve Jobs had history with Pixar), so I wonder if they'll have some sort of deal to include Disney content in this.

Because if they don't, I have a really hard time seeing Apple's content library at $10 competing at all with Disney+ at $7.

An alternate theory, Apple has other subscription services (Music and upcoming Arcade) that could be bundled together at a discount to give them a competitive offering.

Since they're finally trying to make a serious push on Apple TV as a gaming platform (in that it's getting PS3/XB1 controller support) it would make some sense to try and rope people into both subscriptions. If music rides along and gets people to switch from Spotify, that's a bonus.

But isn't Disney+ only Disney properties and family-friendly content? Apple seems more like a HBO or Netflix.

You have to remember Disney includes Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and 20th Century Fox, which includes the Simpsons. They advertise 30 seasons of the Simpsons on the Disney plus landing page.

So Disney+ will have original content for mature audiences content from Fox? I totally think it'll be a monster hit but it seems like if you're not interested in the franchises and want to watch truly original series / content you need an HBO or Netflix.

Family friendly will be Disney+ everything and the kitchen sink will be Hulu

They're producing original content, too. I saw a trailer today for a feature film from Apple w/an A-list cast.

Has Apple ever really pursued being an ISP? I feel like competing with bundled cable Internet at least in the US is going to be the main thing holding back potential cord cutters sometime soon. I don’t have cable but still pay Cox $100 for my internet, and every time I go looking for alternatives nothing really looks much better.

YouTube TV is fantastic, and even after they raised the price to $50, it's still cheaper for me to use YouTube TV + Comcast internet. YTV is better and cheaper than any cable TV package I've got access to, even if I bundle.

Sure. AppleLink and eWorld.

it would only be worth it if they provided entire itunes movie catalog. prime, netflix, disneylife and nowtv covers all other bases already

I'd like to have somebody compete with YouTubeTV. They are very expensive now ($50/month).

Actually it's only $9.70 a month with 3% back on Apple services with your Apple Card! You're practically getting 1/3rd of a month for free every year.

Stopping innovative hardware to focus on subscription services is a sad day for Apple. Banking on people forgetting to cancel a monthly subscription to keep profit margins up is certainly a way to make a buck but for a company that used to be a world beater this is a whimper.

Apple has infinite resources. There's no reason they can't do both.

Im not sure if you have seen their keyboards lately (for starters) but they are definitely not doing one of those things anymore.

I already subscribe to Apple Music, which seems similar?

One big difference is that Apple isn't producing any of the content on Apple Music, while they seem to be planning to produce a fair bit of the content for TV+

Agreed completely.

And on a larger note in terms of media distribution and delivery, I feel like we’ve regressed to something even worse and more frustrating than the 20th century model

Unless they're killing one or more of Netflix, Prime, and Crave, they're just making the world a worse place with this.

Remember that brief period when that thing where you had to decide which cable channels you wanted had died, and all you needed was Netflix, before the present day where you have to decide which of a whole handful of streaming service you should subscribe to?

> that brief period when that thing where you had to decide which cable channels you wanted had died, and all you needed was Netflix

This was never the case; Netflix always missed a huge chunk of content that cable providers had. Apple is just providing another service that provides more content. They're not "taking away" from you with this new service.

Ah one more paid subscription service to consume more content and waste more time...no thanks! I think as more of these services are launched, torrents will gain more popularity. Not everyone is going to subscribe to everything. Maybe a group of friends will share accounts but that is it

Lucky for everybody, you only have to subscribe to one or two of these services to have more content than you could possibly consume in a lifetime

It doesn't matter if a platform has more content than anyone can watch on their lifetime. What matters is, how much content worth watching a platform has.

Think about this - for watching GoT I had to subscribe to HBO and to watch some Marvel movie I go to Disney Plus. I keep on switching.

Yes, but is the content the same content that Janet keeps raving about (and plot-spoiling) by the water cooler?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact