Apple TV+: what happened to the world’s most expensive streaming experiment?
With series hits, box office flops, and over a billion dollars in losses per year, Apple TV+ remains a mystery. I took another look at my bold theories from 2019 – and I’m surprised by how right I was.
Six years ago, I made the bold claim that the then-new Apple TV+ wasn’t a real streaming service, but rather «the most expensive customer loyalty programme of all time» – a sales tool for iPhones and the like disguised as a Netflix clone.
Back then, some people laughed at me. Now, MacRumors is citing an article from The Information and reporting that Apple TV+ is losing over a billion dollars a year – the only Apple service to do so. Sounds like a lot of money. And yet, the Californians continue to pursue their prestige project. Why? Because it was never about making money. It was about power, brand loyalty, and control.
In short: I knew it. Let’s look at exactly how right I got things, point by point. Yes, I’m entitled to give myself some credit.
Note: these quotes are from my 2019 article critically reviewing the launch of Apple TV+. I’ve slightly shortened, reworded or condensed some of them.
Apple TV+: a streaming service that doesn’t want to be one
«Apple TV+’s the most expensive customer loyalty programme of all time – a sales boost for iPhones and the like disguised as a Netflix clone.»
Today: Back then, this assessment was somewhere between a cheeky comment and a semi-conspiracy theory. From today’s perspective, it was prophetic – even though, according to MacRumors, Apple apparently can’t provide any clear evidence whether Apple TV+ actually impacts iPhone, iPad or Mac sales. And yet, everything suggests that the service should have precisely this effect:
- From the beginning, Apple TV+ was given away en masse for a whole year to anyone who bought a new Apple device.
- Today, however, most users access Apple TV+ via Apple One. Apple One is Apple’s service bundle that combines iCloud+, Music, Arcade, Fitness+, and Apple TV+, among other features.
- This makes the streaming service a golden add-on in the overall Apple One package, intended to retain customers rather than a standalone revenue generator.
- Even Apple never emphasises the performance of Apple TV+ in its quarterly figures – it focuses on the growth rate of the entire service segment.
- And that segment generated around 96 billion dollars in revenue in 2024.
- Apple TV+ may be the loss-making fish in the major service pond – but it’s one with pretty shiny scales when it comes to image, exclusivity, and media appeal.
Apple measures success not by profits, but by impact: Apple TV+ viewers stay in the ecosystem. Apple One users are less likely to cancel. And viewers of a high-quality series such as Severance or Silo associate it with a high-quality device. This is no coincidence – it’s a strategy.
✅ Correct prediction – even if Apple still can’t (or doesn’t want to) say whether it’s working.
Quality over quantity
«Apple doesn’t opt for mass production like Netflix or Disney+; it focuses on a few, particularly high-quality in-house productions. Quality over quantity – quality as a unique selling point.»
Today: Yes, Apple TV+ actually has the smallest catalogue of all major streaming services. According to data analytics firm JustWatch, Apple TV+ boasts just 275 original productions. In comparison, Netflix released over 1,000 original series and films in 2023 alone and currently has 7,183 original productions. That’s content buffet versus curation bistro.
However, the strategy of deliberately focusing on a few, particularly high-quality productions has proved to be surprisingly effective:
- In 2022 – just three years after its launch – Apple TV+ achieved a historic milestone with Coda, becoming the first streaming service ever to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Netflix, on the other hand, is still waiting for a gong, despite several nominations.
- Series including Ted Lasso, Severance, and Slow Horses receive top reviews and regularly appear in best-of lists – keeping Apple TV+ in the conversation, even if it doesn’t appear in the masses’ feeds every day.
- According to Parrot Analytics, Apple TV+ once again achieved one of the highest demand-per-title ratings in the entire streaming market last year. Or, in more simple terms, each Apple TV+ series attracts, on average, more attention than the next eight-season crime drama on Prime Video.
But this strategy comes at a price. Literally. For many, the offering’s simply too small to remain sustainable. At the end of 2024, Apple TV+ had approximately 45 million paying users. Netflix now has over 300 million, while Disney+ is approaching 155 million— and recently even started making a profit.
✅ Correct prediction – with limitations in economic efficiency.
Blockbusters that (most likely) nobody watches
«Apple wants to produce not only high-quality series but also high-quality films – playing a role at the cinema. This is likely to bring prestige rather than profit.»
Today: Apple has significantly ramped up its cinematic ambitions – and paid handsomely for it. The idea was to make blockbusters with Hollywood stars, release them in cinemas, win awards…and ultimately strengthen its own platform. But so far, the plan has backfired:
- Spy comedy Argylle from Kingsman director Matthew Vaughn was a major flop, both at the box office and with critics (33 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes). Even Henry Cavill, Dua Lipa and a $200 million budget couldn’t save it. Ridley Scott's Napoleon fared better, but also fell short of expectations – and disappeared relatively quietly on Apple TV+ after a brief theatrical run. Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon also brought prestige, but despite Oscar nominations for Scorsese and Robert De Niro, it didn’t provide a clear answer to the question: who actually watches these films on Apple TV+?
Unlike Netflix or Disney+, Apple doesn’t provide concrete viewership figures. And while the hype surrounding series like Ted Lasso is palpable, films often fizzle out silently on its own streaming platform, despite theatrical releases and expensive advertising campaigns. Let’s be honest: does Fly Me to the Moon do anything for you?
What remains is the impression that Apple is desperate to play a role in the world of «big cinema» – but nobody’s paying that much attention.
✅ Correct prediction – the prestige is there, but there's no sign of profit.
Billions in losses – deliberate or dangerous?
«As soon as Apple is sure of its customer base, subscription prices will go up to make profit. Apple’s playing the long game here.»
Today: Today: Well, the long-term game’s still going, but financially, it’s currently more like an expensive hobby, despite subscription prices nearly doubling since launch. As I mentioned earlier, according to MacRumors, Apple TV+ is losing over a billion dollars per year. By comparison, other services such as iCloud+, Apple Music and the App Store are Apple’s most stable moneymakers, with profit margins of up to 75 per cent – alongside the iPhone.
Nevertheless, no one at Apple seems to be panicking. At least not publicly:
- According to MacRumors, Apple estimated losses of up to $20 billion over the first ten years at launch.
- That actually puts the current deficit below expectations – controlled blood loss, so to speak.
- Apple can afford it: the company made over $100 billion in profit in the 2024 fiscal year alone. The billion in losses from Apple TV+ is hardly significant – from an accounting perspective, it’s more of an expensive image filter than a real problem.
Things only get truly uncomfortable when this filter stops working. According to MacRumors, Tim Cook himself has demanded more control over spending. First-class private jets for Hollywood stars are no longer unlimited in the budget – and Apple TV+ CEO Peter Stern threw in the towel in frustration in 2023.
🟡 Partially correct prediction: Apple has increased prices, but is obviously not yet profitable and continues to factor in losses.
What success really means for Apple
«Apple doesn’t need to know how many people use Apple TV+ – as long as it helps sell more iPhones.»
Today: That seems to be exactly the case. As MacRumors claims, Apple couldn’t reliably say in the first few years whether Apple TV+ would actually achieve anything – neither in terms of device sales nor in terms of brand loyalty.
- Internal data on whether Apple TV+ motivates customers to buy an iPhone? None, at least not public.
- Clear targets, such as how many subscriptions the service should achieve or how long the retention period should be? Also not available.
- Metrics that could be optimised with Apple’s typical attention to detail? Obviously not a priority.
According to the report, Apple didn’t even have consistent metrics for Apple TV+ in the early years. Eddy Cue, Apple’s Head of Services, long resisted overly strict controls – presumably to give the team creative freedom. Or – to put it another way – they probably just let the streaming department do what it wanted…and hoped something good would come out of it.
What does that mean today? It’s hard to say. While Apple probably has more numbers internally these days, there are still no concrete usage figures, no viewer rankings, and no time-on statistics publicly available. So, we simply don’t know how many people are actually watching Severance. Or Argylle. Or anything at all.
✅ Correct prediction: Apple apparently doesn’t measure…much. Or at least not in a way that we can find out.
What now, Apple?
Apple TV+’s at a crossroads. Six years after its launch, the service isn’t a Netflix-killer, but it’s not a flop either. It’s typically Apple – a hybrid: sometimes a prestige project, sometimes an ecosystem building block, sometimes a luxury experiment with a polished image.
I can see three conceivable scenarios:
1. Business as usual:
Apple sticks to its strategy, acquires high-profile films, produces select series – and doesn’t care too much about the raw numbers. Prestige matters. And as long as the entire company generates over 100 billion dollars in profit per year, no one’ll be criticised just because a streaming service burns a billion or two.
2. More control, more volume:
Tim Cook’s already called for stricter oversight. So, it’s conceivable that Apple will produce more selectively in the future, tailor projects more to its reach and at least partially open itself up to the mainstream – without losing its premium appeal. Whether that’ll work better than Henry Cavill with a dodgy haircut remains to be seen.
3. Bundles instead of blockbusters:
The Apple One strategy continues to expand. Apple TV+ remains the icing on the subscription cake, but the cake itself is becoming more important: more integration, more cloud, more health, more cross-selling. Once you’re in, you stay in – and eventually, you’ll no longer even realise what you’re paying for.
Verdict: Apple TV+ isn’t Apple’s Netflix. It’s Apple playing Netflix – by its own rules. My predictions may have been bold in 2019, but they seem almost banal now. Of course, Apple TV+ was never intended solely as a streaming service.
Maybe that’s exactly where its strength lies.
And maybe also its issue.
Header image: David Lee
74 people like this article
Luca Fontana
Senior Editor
Luca.Fontana@digitecgalaxus.chI'm an outdoorsy guy and enjoy sports that push me to the limit – now that’s what I call comfort zone! But I'm also about curling up in an armchair with books about ugly intrigue and sinister kingkillers. Being an avid cinema-goer, I’ve been known to rave about film scores for hours on end. I’ve always wanted to say: «I am Groot.»
51 comments
later