Unlike other streaming networks, Apple TV has a lot of backing from leadership to remain prestige and passion driven, as it's a good loss leader and brand maker for Apple.<p>For example, look at the zeitgeist Ted Lasso, Severance, Tehran, and Pachinko have all been able to leverage.
People don't want to pay a monthly subscription to watch 5 good shows (all drama, btw). Apple TV lacks breadth for the average consumer, at least relative to the competition.
Netflix lost money its first 13-years (in aggregate).<p>And wasn’t really until year 18-year, that the money it made became meaningful.<p>When you don’t have a catalog, creating content is expensive.<p><a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-income/" rel="nofollow">https://www.statista.com/statistics/272561/netflix-net-incom...</a>
Steve Jobs had Pixar and iTunes; Tim Cook had Apple TV+, I guess. Apple couldn’t possibly be Apple without some play at cultural significance.<p>I know old Stevenotes in the heyday of iTunes would make a habit of bringing in musicians to show they could - John Mayer etc. - and I guess Ben Stiller and Adam Scott may be up next.
How can you spend so much when it only has 10 shows and 10 movies?<p>They struggle to even fill the top 10 list because they often don’t have enough shows or movies.
Currently Apple has 54 billion in cash and cash equivalents (down $100B since 2023 in dividends, stock buybacks, and capex). They can keep this going for a while.
Honestly it might be a bargain, simply for maintaining a certain brand image. Apple has a huge pile of cash, and with respect this is content very very very few other companies are willing to or can afford to make. It buys Apple a kind of mind share that will last & endure & keep paying our, will maintain the Apple name, in a way that nothing else Apple could possibly do would.