Popular shared stories on NewsBlur.
2781 stories
·
62691 followers

Apple loses $1B a year on prestigious, minimally viewed Apple TV+: report

1 Share

The Apple TV+ streaming service “is losing more than $1 billion annually,” according to The Information today.

The report also claimed that Apple TV+’s subscriber count reached “around 45 million” in 2024, citing the two anonymous sources.

Ars reached out to Apple for comment on the accuracy of The Information’s report and will update this article if we hear back.

According to one of the sources, Apple TV+ has typically spent over $5 billion annually on content since 2019, when Apple TV+ debuted. Last year, though, Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly cut the budget by about $500 million. The reported numbers are similar to a July report from Bloomberg that claimed that Apple had spent over $20 billion on Apple TV+’s library. For comparison, Netflix has 301.63 million subscribers and expects to spend $18 billion on content in 2025.

In the year preceding Apple TV+’s debut, Apple services chief Eddy Cue reportedly pushed back on executive requests to be stingier with content spending, “a person with direct knowledge of the matter” told The Information.

But Cook started paying closer attention to Apple TV+’s spending after the 2022 Oscars, where the Apple TV+ original CODA won Best Picture. The award signaled the significance of Apple TV+ as a business.

Per The Information, spending related to Apple TV+ previously included lavish perks for actors and producers. Apple paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight” to transport Apple TV+ actors and producers to promotional events, The Information said, noting that such spending “is common in Hollywood" but "more unusual at Apple.” Apple’s finance department reportedly pushed Apple TV+ executives to find better flight deals sometime around 2023.

In 2024, Cook questioned big-budget Apple TV+ films, like the $200 million Argylle, which he said failed to generate impressive subscriber boosts or viewership, an anonymous “former Apple TV+ employee” shared. Cook reportedly cut about $500 million from the Apple TV+ content budget in 2024.

It’s not hard to see why Apple might want to be more frugal about streaming. Apple TV+ is a service business, which is a revenue category that’s become increasingly important to Apple as customers’ hardware habits shift, including toward buying new iPhones less frequently. Services represented 21 percent of Apple’s revenue in its most recent earnings report. Apple TV+ is reportedly the only part of Apple’s services business that’s not turning a profit. However, sources told The Information that some of Apple’s other services, including Apple Arcade, Apple Music, and Apple News+, are struggling with tiny margins.

Limited viewership

Apple TV+’s library boasts prestige shows, but its viewership is scant, hindering its ability to make money.

According to Nielsen tracking of streaming content viewed on TVs, Apple TV+ garners less than 1 percent of monthly TV viewership typically, compared to Netflix's 8.2 percent and Max's 1.2 percent in February 2025.

Apple has also been criticized for comparatively small marketing efforts for Apple TV+. For example, Apple reportedly spent $14.9 million on commercials for Apple TV+ in October 2019 versus $28.6 million on the iPhone, according to data from iSpot.TV that was reported by The New York Times.

$1 billion in losses

Apple TV+ being Apple’s only service not turning a profit isn't good, but it’s also expected. Like other streaming services, Apple TV+ wasn't expected to be profitable until years after its launch. An Apple TV+ employee that The Information said reviewed the streaming service’s business plan said Apple TV+ is expected to lose $15 billion to $20 billion during its first 10 years.

For comparison, Disney’s direct-to-consumer streaming business had operating losses of $11.4 billion between the launch of Disney+ in fall 2020 and April 2024. Disney’s streaming business became profitable for the first time in its fiscal quarter ending on June 29, 2024.

Apple is also worth nearly $4 trillion and made $93.7 billion in net income during its most recent fiscal year. That makes $1 billion in annual streaming losses manageable.

Still, streaming is a huge opportunity for Apple, and even streaming newcomers that have struggled in the past are finding ways to turn profits lately. Of course, many of Apple TV+'s rivals are making ends meet with ads and price hikes. Apple TV+ doesn't have ads and hasn't increased prices since the fall of 2023 (which is a long time for a streaming service these days).

Still, Apple TV+ is challenged to find a way to stand out in an increasingly competitive streaming market that includes rivals with much bigger libraries that are shifting toward mass, mainstream appeal.

Today, The Information reiterated previously made claims that the initial idea behind Apple TV+ wasn’t about having the most streaming subscribers but about making people more attached to the iPhone and Apple ecosystem.

However, Apple may be struggling to make good on those plans, too. The tech giant appears to have gaps in its ability to share analysis about which streaming efforts work. Multiple people who worked for Apple TV+ told The Information that they didn't have data on whether or not making the Apple TV app available on non-Apple devices led to more hardware sales, as Apple thought it would.

Now Apple has a streaming service with a strong but lesser-known reputation and a notable amount of losses. Apple TV+ will likely keep losing Apple money in the coming quarters, but what’s most important is if Apple can communicate a clear direction for the streaming service—both internally and to streamers. Even the industry is unsure about Apple's streaming intentions.

“I don’t understand it beyond a marketing play, but they’re really smart people," Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos said of Apple TV+ to Variety this week. “Maybe they see something we don’t.”

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
fxer
2 hours ago
reply
Bend, Oregon
Share this story
Delete

The Trump Administration Wants USAID on the Blockchain | WIRED

1 Comment
Read the whole story
acdha
3 hours ago
reply
Second stage grift launching now…
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

The Pain That Is GitHub Actions

1 Share
Comments
Read the whole story
JayM
12 hours ago
reply
Atlanta, GA
Share this story
Delete

Solar Power, Logically

1 Comment

We’ve all seen the ads. Some offer “free” solar panels. Others promise nearly free energy if you just purchase a solar — well, solar system doesn’t sound right — maybe… solar energy setup. Many of these plans are dubious at best. You pay for someone to mount solar panels on your house and then pay them for the electricity they generate at — presumably — a lower cost than your usual source of electricity. But what about just doing your own set up? Is it worth it? We can’t answer that, but [Brian Potter] can help you answer it for yourself.

In a recent post, he talks about the rise of solar power and how it is becoming a large part of the power generation landscape. Interestingly, he presents graphs of things like the cost per watt of solar panels adjusted for 2023 dollars. In 1975, a watt cost over $100. These days it is about $0.30. So the price isn’t what slows solar adoption.

The biggest problem is the intermittent nature of solar. But how bad is that really? It depends. If you can sell power back to the grid when you have it to spare and then buy it back later, that might make sense. But it is more effective to store what you make for your own use.

That, however, complicates things. If you really want to go off the grid, you need enough capacity to address your peak demand and enough storage to meet demand over several days to account for overcast days, for example.

There’s more to it than just that. Read the post for more details. But even if you don’t want solar, if you enjoy seeing data-driven analysis, there is plenty to like here.

Building an effective solar power system is within reach of nearly anyone these days. Some of the problems with solar go away when you put the cells in orbit. Of course, that always raises new problems.

Read the whole story
jepler
13 hours ago
reply
30 cents a watt? Why, some folks pay that per kWh. Solar almost can't NOT pay for itself at that price.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
pleppik
3 hours ago
Yes, but…that’s just the cost of the panels. You need inverters, mounting, installation, etc., so the actual system cost is likely to be $2-$4/watt depending on where you live. The price of the panels has dropped tremendously over the past 20 years, but the price of everything else has not.
Share this story
Delete

World’s Smallest Blinky, Now Even Smaller

1 Comment

Here at Hackaday, it’s a pretty safe bet that putting “World’s smallest” in the title of an article will instantly attract comments claiming that someone else built a far smaller version of the same thing. But that’s OK, because if there’s something smaller than this nearly microscopic LED blinky build, we definitely want to know about it.

The reason behind [Mike Roller]’s build is simple: he wanted to build something smaller than the previous smallest blinky. The 3.2-mm x 2.5-mm footprint of that effort is a tough act to follow, but technology has advanced somewhat in the last seven years, and [Mike] took advantage of that by basing his design on an ATtiny20 microcontroller in a WLCSP package and an 0201 LED, along with a current-limiting resistor and a decoupling capacitor. Powering the project is a 220-μF tantalum capacitor, which at a relatively whopping 3.2 mm x 1.6 mm determines the size of the PCB, which [Mike] insisted on using.

Assembling the project was challenging, to say the least. [Mike] originally tried a laboratory hot plate to reflow the board, but when the magnetic stirrer played havoc with the parts, he switched to a hot-air rework station with a very low airflow. Programming the microcontroller almost seemed like it was more of a challenge; when the pogo pins he was planning to use proved too large for the job he tacked leads made from 38-gauge magnet wire to the board with the aid of a micro hot air tool.

After building version one, [Mike] realized that even smaller components were available, so there’s now a 2.4 mm x 1.5 mm version using an 01005 LED. We suspect there’ll be a version 3.0 soon, though — he mentions that the new TI ultra-small microcontrollers weren’t available yet when he pulled this off, and no doubt he’ll want to take a stab at this again.

Read the whole story
jepler
14 hours ago
reply
comments on hackaday came to the same conclusion as me: what if you dead-bug the LED on the IC pads and dispense with the PCB altogether...
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Share this story
Delete

FAQ: Executive Order Targeting IMLS | ALA

ALA
1 Share

Read the whole story
acdha
14 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

ESDI Adventures (os2museum.com)

1 Comment
Comments
Read the whole story
jepler
15 hours ago
reply
Remember ESDI? I had plumb fergot.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories