Connect with us

Business

Apple has made splashy bets in Hollywood. Are they paying off?

Published

on

Apple has made splashy bets in Hollywood. Are they paying off?

In the first episode of the Apple TV+ show “The Studio,” Oscar-winning director Martin Scorsese sells his script to the fictional Continental Studios, only to be told later by a studio chief played by Seth Rogen that the project, about Jonestown, has been killed.

Instead, the company is fast-tracking a soulless brand-based cash grab: a Kool-Aid movie.

“Just give me back my movie and let me go sell it to f— Apple, the way I should have done it in the first place,” a despairing Scorsese says.

The line could practically be an ad for how Apple TV+, the Cupertino tech giant’s streaming service, has positioned itself as a creative haven for filmmakers trying to sell bold, original ideas.

The service, which was introduced in 2019 with a splashy event featuring Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg, found success with comedy shows like “Ted Lasso” and 2022 best picture Academy Award winner “CODA.”

Advertisement

But the question hanging over the company was, just how serious was it about its Hollywood ambitions? Would it be the next big power player? Or would it become just another deep-pocketed short-timer? For years after they joined the company, Apple TV+ leaders Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg were dogged by rumors that their jobs were in jeopardy.

Lately though, its efforts have come more into focus. It’s been on a run of critical success with shows such as “Severance,” “The Studio” and “Your Friends & Neighbors.” Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said in a call with investors on Thursday that Apple TV+ “has become a must-see destination” and posted record viewership in the quarter.

Some have compared it to HBO — before Warner Bros. Discovery began making cuts — developing a reputation for being willing to pay big for A-list stars and creatives.

“It’s been brilliant at defining its niche … and the quality of what it does is simply superb,” said Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. “The question is, is the niche big enough to justify the expense?”

Apple TV+’s subscriber base remains small compared to competitors, including Netflix. It lacks the deep, established libraries of Walt Disney Co. or Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max, which helps keep customers paying every month and not switching to another service. While it has good shows and movies, critics say, it lacks the volume and breadth of its competitors.

Advertisement

And the quality over quantity approach has its doubters. Wedbush Securities managing director Daniel Ives estimates Apple TV+ has 57 million subscribers, which he called “disappointing.” Wall Street had hoped to see 100 million or more subscribers by now, he said.

Apple has “built a mansion [and] they don’t have enough furniture, and that’s a problem from a content perspective with Apple TV+,” Ives said.

Further, tech and business news site the Information reported that Apple TV+ is losing $1 billion a year. The company’s strategy has left some rivals scratching their heads.

“I don’t understand it beyond a marketing play, but they’re really smart people,” said Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos in a March interview with Variety. “Maybe they see something we don’t.”

Apple declined to comment.

Advertisement

Observers noted that it can take a long time for streaming services to become profitable. NBCUniversal’s Peacock is still losing money, for example.

In recent years, subscription streaming services have been under pressure by investors to produce more profit. In an industry where there’s a lot of competition and Netflix has been declared the winner, there’s anxiety about how many platforms can survive on their own.

But Apple thinks differently about entertainment compared to its more traditional studio rivals, people familiar with the company say.

Apple TV+ is just one part of the company’s larger strategy to grow its subscription services business under Eddy Cue, which includes Apple Music, iCloud storage and Apple News, among other options.

The services category represented 25% of Apple’s overall sales of $391 billion in its last fiscal year. The company’s largest money maker remains the iPhone, which represented 51% of Apple’s total revenues in its last fiscal year.

Advertisement

In its most recent quarter, services reached a revenue record of $26.6 billion, up 12% from a year ago, the company said.

Apple TV+ is “a small piece of all the services that you provide,” said Alejandro Rojas, vice president of applied analytics with Parrot Analytics. “You want this to add to the overall brand experience, but without also crossing a massive gap in resources and investments.”

Apple TV+’s programming strategy has taken a talent-friendly approach, tending to favor projects with big-name stars.

One of its early major bets was “The Morning Show” with Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon and Steve Carell. Drama “Your Friends & Neighbors” stars Jon Hamm from “Mad Men.” Its February survival drama film “The Gorge” stars Miles Teller and Anya Taylor-Joy.

One of Apple’s biggest movie releases will happen this summer with Formula 1 film “F1” (featuring Brad Pitt), which hits theaters in June, including on Imax screens. Warner Bros. is handling the theatrical release for the big-budget movie, directed by Joseph Kosinski (“Top Gun: Maverick”).

Advertisement

Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore, hopes “F1” will play like “Top Gun: Maverick” on a racetrack. Some of Apple’s previous filmmaker-driven, star-studded movies struggled at theaters, including “Fly Me to the Moon” and “Argylle.”

“This is a huge movie for Apple,” Dergarabedian said. “I think they picked a perfect project to really amplify their filmmaking acumen and their filmmaker relationships.”

The way Apple treats talent has a personalized touch, said creatives who have worked with the company.

Tomorrow Studios president Becky Clements said she was “forever grateful” that Apple took a shot on “Physical,” an original series starring Rose Byrne about a 1980s housewife who struggles with an eating disorder and finds strength through aerobics.

“It’s an original piece, which is often a difficult thing to pull off in the marketplace,” Clements said.

Advertisement

Clements credited Apple with supporting the filmmakers and not micromanaging the show, which delved into difficult material.

Ben Silverman, an executive producer on upcoming Apple TV+ series “Stick” (starring Owen Wilson), said the show’s budget allowed for traveling to North Carolina for filming, where prominent golf commentators Trevor Immelman and Jim Nantz were located during the PGA Tour.

“I think a lot of platforms are supportive of their creators right now, but they may not have the bandwidth to go as deep as Apple can on individual projects because they’re just not doing as many,” said Silverman, chairman and co-CEO of L.A.-based Propagate Content.

Advertisement

Not all creatives have been happy with Apple.

It threw observers for a loop when it did a short and limited theatrical release for last year’s Brad Pitt and George Clooney action-comedy movie “Wolfs,” instead of a more traditional wide release.

Director Jon Watts told Deadline he backed out of a sequel because he was surprised by Apple’s “last minute” shift and that Apple ignored his request to not reveal that he was working on a follow-up. Apple has not addressed the controversy publicly.

Like other streamers, over time, Apple TV+ has made changes to help generate more revenue, cut costs and increase customers. Last month, Apple cut the price of its streaming service temporarily to $2.99 a month. Its base monthly fee is $9.99. Last year, Apple TV+ reached a deal to sell subscriptions through Amazon.

In February, Apple TV+ captured 30% of its sign-ups via Amazon Channels, said Brendan Brady, director of strategy at research firm Antenna. High-profile releases including the new “Severance” season and “The Gorge” drove sign-ups, he added.

Advertisement

“It’s a combination of content driving their acquisition, and also that opening up of their distribution attracting a new audience,” Brady said.

Apple’s overall business faces macroeconomic challenges, such as the Trump administration’s trade war with China.

Government officials have warned that tariffs on smartphones made in China are coming — which would harm Apple’s iPhone because many are made in the country. Increased costs to Apple’s overall business could eventually squeeze other areas of the company including Apple TV+, analysts said.

Some people who work with Apple said it’s too early to judge Apple’s success based on its estimated subscriber counts so far, and they’re placing chips on the venture succeeding in the long run.

“It’s about investing early and long-term,” Silverman said. “I’m always an entrepreneurial spirit who wants to lean in early to these platforms and partnerships, hoping that I can build a beachfront relationship.”

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

Published

on

Video: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

new video loaded: The Battle for Warner Bros. Discovery

Nicole Sperling, a Times reporter who covers Hollywood and the streaming revolution, breaks down the competing bids from Netflix and Paramount to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

By Nicole Sperling, Edward Vega, Laura Salaberry, Jon Hazell and Chris Orr

December 9, 2025

Continue Reading

Business

HBO Max subscriber sues Netflix to halt merger

Published

on

HBO Max subscriber sues Netflix to halt merger

Let the legal battle begin.

On Monday, a Las Vegas-based HBO Max subscriber sued Netflix over concerns that the streamer’s plans to buy some of Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets would create an anti-competitive environment in the entertainment industry and raise subscription prices.

Netflix said last week it agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery’s film and TV business, its Burbank lot, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service for $27.75 a share or $72 billion. It also agreed to take on more than $10 billion of Warner Bros.’ debt, creating a deal value of $82.7 billion.

Michelle Fendelander alleges in her lawsuit that if Netflix’s deal were to go through, it would decrease competition in the subscription streaming market. She is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the merger from happening or issue a remedy for the anti-competitive effects.

Advertisement

“American consumers — including SVOD purchasers like Plaintiff, an HBO Max subscriber — will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money,” according to Fendelander’s lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose.

Netflix on Tuesday called the lawsuit “meritless” and “merely an attempt by the plaintiffs bar to leverage all the attention on the deal.”

The Los Gatos, Calif.,-based streamer is long seen as the winner of the subscription streaming wars, boosted by having successfully entered the streaming content space earlier than rivals and for its superior recommendation technology. By buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, Netflix would gain access to more franchises and characters, including Batman, “Game of Thrones” and Harry Potter. Netflix said it plans to keep Warner Bros.’ commitments to bringing its movies to theaters.

But Fendelander and some industry observers are concerned that Netflix owning one of its streaming rivals will hurt the entertainment industry because it means less competition.

“The elimination of this rivalry is likely to reduce overall content output, diminish the diversity and quality of available content, and narrow the spectrum of creative voices appearing on major streaming platforms,” according to the lawsuit by Fendelander, who has never been a Netflix subscriber.

Advertisement

Streamers over the years have steadily raised their prices, and some analysts said they would not be surprised if subscription prices continued to go up.

Netflix executives said they believe their deal to acquire WBD’s assets will benefit key stakeholders.

“It’s going to mean more options for consumers,” said Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters on a call with investors last Friday. “It’s going to be more opportunities for creators, more value for our shareholders. Together, we’ve got the chance to bring great stories, cutting edge innovation and more choice to audiences everywhere.”

Peters also pointed out at a UBS conference on Monday that Netflix combined with the assets it is acquiring from Warner Bros. Discovery would still amount to a smaller share of U.S. TV viewing than YouTube.

Whether the deal will get over the finish line remains to be seen, although Netflix executives say they believe it will. On Monday, Paramount said it would directly appeal to shareholders to offer an alternative bid.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

Published

on

Federal judge strikes down Trump’s order blocking development of wind energy

A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s ban on federal permits for wind energy projects in what supporters said was an important victory for the embattled industry.

President Trump issued the ban on his first day back in office through an executive order that called for the temporary withdrawal of nearly all federal land and waters from new or renewed wind-energy leasing. The president said such leases “may lead to grave harm” including negative effects on national security, transportation and commercial interests, among other justifications.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, for the District of Massachusetts, ruled that the ban is “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” and said the concern about “grave harm” was insufficient to justify the immense scope of a moratorium on all wind energy.

The challenge was brought by attorneys general in 17 states, including California, and Washington.

In it, they argued that halting federal wind permits created an “existential threat” to the wind industry that could erase billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs.

Advertisement

“A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

At least seven major offshore wind projects were paused as a result of the federal permitting ban, according to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, plus several more that were in early phases of development.

“This ban on wind projects was illegal, as this court has now declared. The administration should use this as a wake-up call, stop its illegal actions and get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy,” said Kit Kennedy, the council’s managing director for power, in a statement.

The lawsuit noted the president’s executive order was issued the same day as his National Energy Emergency Declaration, which encouraged domestic energy development not tied to wind and other renewables. The president has heavily supported fossil fuel production including oil, gas and coal.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while the rest of the energy industry was “hindered by burdensome regulations.”

Advertisement

“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” Rogers said. “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”

California has vowed to stay the course on offshore wind despite the federal challenges.

The state has an ambitious goal of 25 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy by 2045, by which point California officials say offshore wind could represent 10% to 15% of the Golden State’s energy portfolio. Five ocean leases have already been granted to energy companies off Humboldt County and Morro Bay.

In August, the Trump administration said it was cutting $679 million for “doomed” offshore wind projects, including $427 million that had been earmarked for California.

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. clean energy at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said obstructing the build-out of clean power is the wrong move as the country’s need for electricity is surging from data centers, industry and other demands.

Advertisement

Wind, solar and battery storage offer the most affordable ways to get more reliable power on the grid, Kelly said.

“We should not be kneecapping America’s largest source of renewable power,” he said, “especially when we need more cheap, homegrown electricity.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending