Apple's streaming video hits iPhones, iPads, and Apple TV for free in early 2019

Apple is reportedly narrowing in on a way of serving up its slate of high-budget TV shows, the plan being to pair its original content with subscriptions from outside companies.

An Apple service will be highlighted in the "TV" app pre-installed on iPhones, iPads, and the Apple TV, sources told CNBC. People who own one of those devices will be able to watch Apple-owned shows for free, but the company is allegedly planning to offer access to subscription "channels" for outside online services.

As a part of the effort, Apple is expected to launch an overhauled version of the TV app early next year.

Further on, Apple is hoping to score "tent pole" shows that could prop up its own paid service akin to Netflix, the sources added. These would however follow the company's philosophy of aiming for family-friendly content, meaning it won't have an equivalent of "Game of Thrones," "Mindhunter," or other draws to services like HBO and Netflix.

Apple has tasked Time Warner Cable's former chief strategy officer, Peter Stern, with forging the contracts it needs to assemble a service. Stern is also said to be in charge of attracting publications to Texture, the magazine subscription service it picked up earlier in 2018, but dealing with resistance to giving Apple control of the subscribing billing relationship, since they would rather have their own ways of deterring cancellations.

Rumors that Apple's TV shows would be free perks in the "TV" app have been around for some time, but until now it wasn't clear how the company might make money on the prospect. Apple is believed to be spending at least $1 billion on its first wave.

29 Comments

eightzero 14 Years · 3148 comments

About 6 years ago

Didn't see that coming.

mark fearing 16 Years · 441 comments

It makes sense. A lot of sense. The devices are what Apple needs to sell. Anything that makes the devices more appealing, including content, will do that. Like Amazon - content is basically a marketing expense. That's the difference between a traditional media company (where I worked for years) and Amazon and Apple. They don't need to make a profit on a show or movie. That is good and bad. It's scary for traditional media producers because they can only make content, or they must mostly make content that people are willing to pay for just to see that content. It's what I would have suspected. I'm not sure Apple would ever launch a stand alone content service for a fee. Sell devices. Make profit. Make stuff people can watch on the devices and only on those devices, maybe sell more devices.

rogifan_new 9 Years · 4297 comments

mark fearing said:

It makes sense. A lot of sense. The devices are what Apple needs to sell. Anything that makes the devices more appealing, including content, will do that. Like Amazon - content is basically a marketing expense. That's the difference between a traditional media company (where I worked for years) and Amazon and Apple. They don't need to make a profit on a show or movie. That is good and bad. It's scary for traditional media producers because they can only make content, or they must mostly make content that people are willing to pay for just to see that content. It's what I would have suspected. I'm not sure Apple would ever launch a stand alone content service for a fee. Sell devices. Make profit. Make stuff people can watch on the devices and only on those devices, maybe sell more devices.

True but it seems like the opposite of what Wall Street wants. And with hardware sales basically flat hoodies Apple increase services revenues if their content is free? If this report is true what it tells me is Apple executives aren’t confident the original programming they have is good enough that people will want to pay for it.

seanismorris 8 Years · 1624 comments

Apple is reeeally late to the ball game. Netflix and Amazon have been doing this for quite a while, and their still playing catch-up with the major players.

Luckly for Apple they have a @#$& load of money to throw at the problem.

It might be best if Apple just buys Sony, who has some interesting assets, to kickstart the effort.

Apple doesn’t like spending in big chunks, but it would pay off in the long run.

mark fearing said:

It makes sense. A lot of sense. The devices are what Apple needs to sell. Anything that makes the devices more appealing, including content, will do that. Like Amazon - content is basically a marketing expense. That's the difference between a traditional media company (where I worked for years) and Amazon and Apple. They don't need to make a profit on a show or movie. That is good and bad. It's scary for traditional media producers because they can only make content, or they must mostly make content that people are willing to pay for just to see that content. It's what I would have suspected. I'm not sure Apple would ever launch a stand alone content service for a fee. Sell devices. Make profit. Make stuff people can watch on the devices and only on those devices, maybe sell more devices.

It kinda does, but I wouldn't have predicted it. OTOH, I can see Amazon simply giving devices away. Anything that makes it easy for someone to spend money is something you want broad access to. "Here's a free Kindle with the purchase of 10 books/ a subscription/whatevs." Or "Here's an echo thingy. Tell it what you want to buy, and after you buy $1000 of crap with it, we return the price to your account."

I can also see a subscription ad service. Set up a preferences for ads, and when those run during some content, the ad buy pays the viewer some nominal amount - 1 penny per minute of ads or some discounts or the like.

People like free stuff, and will kill for rewards and air miles.