With Apple TV+'s launch, Apple is aiming to become the Google of television

Vulture

"Apple’s definition of success won’t be measured simply by how many eyeballs it attracts for its new shows over the next year or two, or even how many people sign up for the service," says Josef Adalian of the Apple TV+ streaming service. "It doesn’t just want to make enough good programming to get people to pay a $4.99 monthly subscription fee. That price is one-third of what WarnerMedia will charge for HBO Max ($14.99), well below Netflix’s most popular plan ($12.99), and a couple dollars cheaper than Disney+ ($6.99) — but it comes with a much smaller library of TV shows and movies. Instead, a key part of its overall strategy is to use its flashy originals as a billboard for Apple’s bulked-up TV app. Much the way Google moved early in the internet age to establish itself as the dominant power for web search, Apple wants to become the home page for video — the place people go to discover, buy, and watch everything streaming, anywhere, whether it’s a show, a movie, or a network. And while it hasn’t said so yet, many experts think the company’s bigger plan is to combine several or even all of its media-centric offerings — music, gaming, news, photo storage, TV — into one big monthly subscription bundle, assuring Apple gets your money even in years you don’t buy a new iPhone or laptop." That doesn't mean the success of Apple TV+ shows is irrelevant. But Apple saw an opening “to do video in a different way than others,” as Apple TV+ co-head Jamie Erlicht explains. “There was also an opportunity in the user experience and user interface to fill a gap that was missing.”

ALSO:

• Apple's attempt to look and sound like HBO is not the same as HBO: "Each of the Apple series feels a few adjustments shy of its full potential," says Alison Herman. "The Morning Show has meltdowns aplenty, but fails to weave them into a statement about journalism or show business misogyny to weigh down its style with some substance. For All Mankind is glacially slow, delaying the big-picture implications of its premise to get bogged down in the details of its slightly-alt NASA. Dickinson is best when it’s as audaciously weird as its subject, though it struggles to balance opium-hallucinated bees and carriage rides with the Grim Reaper alongside a cookie-cutter feminist empowerment narrative. Only See appears to be doing exactly what it wants—but given that what it wants to do is be a ridiculous, borderline-camp epic with lots of silly names and loud grunting, it’s not setting the highest bar for itself to clear. One imperfect-yet-promising show with a slow start is standard; an entire group of them as an opening pitch to consumers does not inspire confidence."
• Can Apple overcome its lackluster content by sheer market domination?: "Can a streaming service overcome a mediocre content lineup by the sheer force of convenience and ease?" asks Brandon Katz. "Apple TV+ may not have reverse engineered an Emmy winner, but maybe that’s no longer a perquisite for taking over the world. Maybe you just need proximity to ensnare our attention."
• Do Apple TV+ shows have to be good to succeed?: "One disappointing show might be acceptable, but four is being painted as disastrous," says Julia Alexander. "Today, Netflix is host to thousands of movies and TV shows, but its first four original shows — Orange Is the New Black, House of Cards, Arrested Development (season 4), and Hemlock Grove — hit the service over the course of a year beginning in 2013. Hell, it took Hulu years to find footing with shows like The Handmaid’s Tale. Even now, it still doesn’t have the same offerings as Netflix. Amazon released its first four original series — Transparent, Mozart in the Jungle, Betas, and Alpha House — over the course of two years. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were given space to find their voices and flourish. It’s ridiculous to think that Apple would be able to do it in its first attempt."
• Apple TV is fine: "The pitch for Apple TV+ is pretty simple: Pay Apple $5 a month, and you'll get access to original shows and movies you won't find anywhere else," says Devindra Hardawar. "It's not a nostalgia play with a huge library of films like Disney+, or an evolution of an existing premium network like HBO Max. Apple TV+ is basically just exclusive content with the power of major celebrities and creatives, like Oprah and Steven Spielberg, behind it. After spending several hours with it, the best I can say is that Apple TV+ is... fine?"
• Apple TV+'s co-heads Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg learning that they were no longer working for a Hollywood studio: “We spent a lot of time at Cupertino getting to know all of the various division heads who were going to be critical to our success,” says Erlicht. "The guiding word is ‘humanity,'" adds Van Amburg. “All of our shows have something to say about the relationships we have with each other and with the world. The common denominator of all the creative people we’ve gotten into business with is 'Wow, they really know what they want to say with this show, and they’re desperate to say it.'"
• Apple TV+ doesn’t seem to have much of a brand at all, unless it’s “expensive"
• Apple TV+'s attack plan: Be smaller. Be cheaper. Be adequate
• Ranking every new Apple TV+ show: For All Mankind is No. 1