I want to be excited aboutApple TV+. I really, truly do.
As someone who generally loves the sort of prestige programming Apple favors for its streaming video service, has fully embraced cord-cutting for movies and TV shows, and appreciates (but isn’t fully invested in) the Apple ecosystem, the launch of Apple TV+ feels like something I should be eagerly anticipating.
But alas, the more I learn about Apple TV+, the more the service seems aimed at an audience that doesn’t include me.
Set to launch November 1, Apple TV+ has animpressive list of original movies and TV seriesthe company has been touting at every opportunity. An anthology series produced by Steven Spielberg, a sci-fi drama from the creator ofBattlestar Galactica, and ashockingly expensive series about a morning news showfeaturing the A-list trio of Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, and Steve Carell are just a few of the highlights of Apple’s programming plans — all for $5 a month.
Therecently released trailer forSee, a post-apocalyptic adventure series starring Jason Momoa, is like icing on the cake, really — particularly when you consider the gorgeous cinematography and visual effects likely to accompany a $15 million per-episode price tag.
And yet, Apple TV+ still seems to be falling short of its competition in the streaming marketplace in far too many ways.
Beyond the original programming, Apple has announced, thecontent outlook for Apple TV+feels surprisingly barren. Of the original series Apple has flaunted so far, only a limited number of shows are expected to be available on the service at launch, and there’s been no mention of the sort of supplemental, licensed content that typically fills out a streaming service’s library (seeNetflix,Hulu, andAmazon Prime Video).
Even at $5 a month, that seems like a recipe for disaster — or at the very least, boredom.
As referenced above, major players likeNetflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Huluall boast robust libraries of licensed content to go along with their original projects, while lower-profile streaming options such asCBS All Accessstill manage to provide a decent enough mix of original and licensed fare (along with other programming perks like on-demand access to network shows) to justify the monthly expense.
And then there’s Apple TV+, which is currently confirmed to offer as few as four or five original series with A-list casts and creative teams, and … what else?
DuringApple’s September 10 presentation, the company also announced that anyone who buys a new MacOS or iOS device will get a free year of Apple TV+. It’s a nice offer, but when you consider that Apple devices typically cost upwards of $1,000, that $60 savings for a still-uncertain, relatively shallow stream of content becomes a little less enticing.
Given that Disney recently made its own Disney+ service available for less than $5 a month in a limited offer (it’s $7 per month regularly), while Netflix offers its Basic plan (and the massive library that comes with it) for $9 a month and Amazon Prime Video attaches its robust service for free withAmazon Prime, the idea of spending all of that money on an Apple device in order to save $60 on Apple TV+ isn’t viable. Instead, Apple TV+ is just a perk for Apple buyers.
In the end, it’s just hard to get as excited about Apple TV+ as other streaming options out there — either existing or upcoming. From its price point to the amount of confirmed content to the way it’s being marketed right now, Apple TV+ seems like less of a stand-alone streaming service and more of an add-on element for people who are already fully invested in Apple and its ecosystem.
