Background information
Apple TV+ – marketing in Netflix’s clothing
by Luca Fontana
Apple TV+: what happened to the world’s most expensive streaming experiment?
25.3.2025
Translation: Megan Cornish
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.
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:
✅ 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.»
However, the strategy of deliberately focusing on a few, particularly high-quality productions has proved to be surprisingly effective:
✅ 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:
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.»
Nevertheless, no one at Apple seems to be panicking. At least not publicly:
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
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.»
Movies and series
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
Background information
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show all
