Sources: Apple TV+ is losing $1B+ annually even as its subscriptions grew to ~45M in 2024; source: Apple has spent $5B+ per year on content since its 2019 debut
Last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook had questions about several pricey movie deals executives of Apple TV+, the company's video-streaming service …
The InformationWayne Ma
Context & Ripple Effects
Apple TV+ began with a large original-programming commitment and later expanded its ambitions into big-budget theatrical films, making the reported annual spending level the continuation of a deliberate strategy rather than a one-off surge.
The service's subscription growth now sits alongside a reported annual loss, sharpening the unresolved question of whether costly exclusives primarily build a standalone business or support Apple's wider services ecosystem. Earlier, Cook had characterized TV+ content decisions as not purely financial.
First-order effects
Reported losses and Tim Cook's questions about expensive film deals put Apple TV+'s content greenlighting and deal terms under more immediate internal scrutiny.
Apple TV+ has reached roughly 45 million subscriptions, but the reported economics indicate that subscriber growth has not yet offset its sustained content outlay.
Second-order effects
Studios, talent and film partners could face a more selective Apple buyer for premium projects if that scrutiny translates into tighter budgets or stronger return expectations.
Apple must more explicitly weigh the marketing and ecosystem value of exclusives against their cash cost, particularly after its move toward large-scale theatrical releases.
Third-order effects
The case tests whether a cash-rich platform can sustain streaming as a strategic complement to a broader services business rather than require standalone profitability.
If other platforms apply similar discipline, the market could shift from using exclusive content chiefly to acquire subscribers toward fewer, more selectively financed premium projects.
The trend: Streaming is moving from expansion-led content spending toward tougher tests of whether exclusives justify their acquisition, retention and ecosystem value.
This doesn't mean it's a failure btw. It just means (so far) Apple hasn't trashed its product with ads and nickel and dime tactics. — I'd also be surprised if the presence of AT+ hasn't contributed more money in other ways like its One bundle subscription. [embedded post]
Apple lighting $1B / year on fire to make mediocre TV. Meanwhile while YouTube / Spotify rip away every hit Podcast from under their nose. They invented the category. Legendary miss.
@loudmouthjulia I remain stunned that Apple still, still! has not launched a cheaper ad tier of TV+. The fact that everyone else is doing it, including Netflix and HBO, should be pushing them in that direction.
Reflecting on the fact that Apple is losing $1 billion a year on TV+: really not great. Especially when there doesn't seem to be much of a Plan to Fix It. Then I remember that AirPods alone are expected to generate +$18 billion. And I think, what does any of it all mean anyway.
If Apple TV+ does have 45 million total subscribers, their per subscriber viewing in the US is tiny. Netflix (with ~80m US subscribers) had 8.2% of US TV viewing in Feb. Apple TV+ had 0.44%. Take your guess for Apple TV+ US subs and apply it to that number.
A few years ago I heard from a trusted source that Apple TV+'s sub numbers are close in number to Hulu (though didn't say if that included free trials from buying Apple products) Hulu has 50 million subs btw
Apple TV+, known for its prestige TV and movies, is losing more than $1 billion a year even as executives try to rein in its spending. The video-streaming service had around 45 million subscribers as of last year. Check out my latest for @theinformation https://www.theinformation…