'Killers of the Flower Moon' gets digital release before Apple TV+ streaming debut

lame. The point of paying for a streaming service is for access. Making existing customers go last is taking them for granted 

StrangeDays said:

lame. The point of paying for a streaming service is for access. Making existing customers go last is taking them for granted 

If content producers can’t make a profit, it causes them to produce more reluctantly. If Apple is to justify investing in expensive prestige productions by first-rate directors, it has to recover most of the cost of production. Frankly, it’s critical to offer this film in a variety of formats, including the usual like a significant run in theatres and the availability to consumers for rent or purchase. If you are Martin Scorsese, you want more than strictly Apple TV+ subscribers to have access to your work. If you’re Apple, deep though your pockets may be, you need to keep costs manageable. There is no fear on the part of Apple TV+ subscribers that they will not have access to the movie. That one has to wait a few months for that access is only a problem for those of us for whom death is imminent. The rest of us can, if we wish, wait a bit and then watch the film via Apple TV+. As an Apple TV+ subscriber, I want Apple to pay for a prestige production and be able to make it work financially so that Apple will do this sort of thing again. If that means the film in question will be in circulation in revenue-generating scenarios for a while before I get to watch it via my subscription, I’m fine with that. It means A-List directors are comfortable working with Apple and Apple can make the numbers work, despite paying for a project like Killers of the Flower Moon. That I’m likely to see the film on Apple TV+ before the Oscars, strikes me as a timely streaming-service launch. 

CarmB said:

StrangeDays said:

lame. The point of paying for a streaming service is for access. Making existing customers go last is taking them for granted 

If content producers can’t make a profit, it causes them to produce more reluctantly. If Apple is to justify investing in expensive prestige productions by first-rate directors, it has to recover most of the cost of production. Frankly, it’s critical to offer this film in a variety of formats, including the usual like a significant run in theatres and the availability to consumers for rent or purchase. If you are Martin Scorsese, you want more than strictly Apple TV+ subscribers to have access to your work. If you’re Apple, deep though your pockets may be, you need to keep costs manageable. There is no fear on the part of Apple TV+ subscribers that they will not have access to the movie. That one has to wait a few months for that access is only a problem for those of us for whom death is imminent. The rest of us can, if we wish, wait a bit and then watch the film via Apple TV+. As an Apple TV+ subscriber, I want Apple to pay for a prestige production and be able to make it work financially so that Apple will do this sort of thing again. If that means the film in question will be in circulation in revenue-generating scenarios for a while before I get to watch it via my subscription, I’m fine with that. It means A-List directors are comfortable working with Apple and Apple can make the numbers work, despite paying for a project like Killers of the Flower Moon. That I’m likely to see the film on Apple TV+ before the Oscars, strikes me as a timely streaming-service launch. 

I don't see how that justifies being served last as a paying subscriber for the platform that purchased the film rights. 

It could go through other platforms (rent or purchase) and simultaneously release to Apple's subscribers for 'free'. 

It would be an incentive to subscribe too. 

AppleInsider said:

Potential viewers of the Martin Scorsese-directed "Killers of the Flower Moon" have a bit longer to wait to watch the film on Apple TV+, but it will be made available to buy and rent digitally ahead of its streaming service release.

This may become a more popular model going forward. One reason cinemas are the preferred route for movies is it's pay-per-person and tickets can be priced higher. Average cinema ticket price noted here is $10:

https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

A family will pay $5-10/month for streaming for all content but a family of 4 would pay $40 to view a single movie in the cinema.

Having digital access to movies is more convenient and can scale higher but streaming prices have been set too low for some services to make a profit.

Disney tried this route with their premier service but set the prices way too high.

$10 per person in the cinema (audience up to ~200m per movie worldwide), then early access maybe 4 weeks after the cinema at something like $10 (audience up to ~400m worldwide) and finally part of the subscription service after 2-3 months.

If they can get 10% of subscribers to spend $10 for an early access movie, they can make $400m, which would be a good result.

Killers of the Flower Moon ended up making $154m, budget was reported to be around $200m:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2023/

After the cinemas take a cut and some marketing budget added, it probably needs over $100m to be profitable. From subs, Apple probably makes over $100m/month but they are funding other content so it makes sense to get extra revenue from rentals.