Apple TV+ predicted to hit 12M subscriptions in 2020, 21M by 2021

Jason Momoa and Alfre Woodard present "See" at an Apple special event in March.

Apple TV+, the iPhone maker's upcoming video streaming service, is likely to achieve 12 million subscriptions by the end of 2020, analysts at Cowen suggest, with Apple breaking even in its original content production efforts if it reaches 10 million users.

The long-awaited video subscription offering is expected to arrive in November and is rumored to cost $9.99 per month. For that cost, subscribers will be able to watch a swathe of content produced for the service, including the news drama "The Morning Show," the Jason Momoa vehicle "See" and a reboot of Steven Spielberg's "Amazing Stories."

To fund the productions, of which Apple has reportedly earmarked more than $6 billion in investments for the content catalog, Apple needs to secure a decent amount of subscribers in order to cover the costs.

According to a Cowen investor note seen by AppleInsider, analysts conservatively forecast total Apple TV+ subscribers of around 12 million for the full year of 2020, rising to 21 million by 2021. This is far below the figures of Netflix and Amazon, at over 150 million and 100 million respectively, but those are established services that have been around for years, while Apple is a newcomer to the field.

As additional context, Cowen notes Apple Music achieved a 10% penetration of approximately 3 million subscribers in its inaugural year, growing to 29% or 16 million in the second, and may reach 37% or 65 million by the end of 2019.

The rumored $9.99 price is in the same ballpark of Cowen's estimates, which would be in line with Apple News+ as well as Amazon Prime Video's $8.99 cost, while undercutting Netflix's Standard and Premium offerings at $12.99 and $15.99, though higher than Hulu's commercial-supported service at $5.99.

While there are "limited details" on pricing and content structure, Cowen assumes the figures based on Apple providing only intellectual property it owns or has rights no. While it could license content and second-run movies and shows in a similar manner to Netflix or Amazon, it is believed TV+ will be "relatively more focused on original source material due to higher margins and differentiating the service with curated content."

Due to this assumption, it isn't expected that the price of Apple TV+ will go above $20 per month, which would be more Apple entering the territory of a "multi-channel video programming distributor" if it did. "We believe if Apple were to include licensed content within the TV subscription itself, it could be from small scale providers that license at an attractive fee to Apple," Cowen suggests, due to the 1.4 billion active devices that form Apple's potential audience.

Based on having over 40 original TV, video series, movies, and other programs under development, Cowen estimates ten could air at launch, with more offered throughout 2020. The current slate of projects, including production and marketing costs, is thought to cost in the region of $2.8 billion.

As Netflix previously commented that over 90% of its streaming content is expected to be amortized within 4 years of its original release, a similar concept could apply to Apple. Using the $2.8 billion figure as an annual content cost run rate, the break even point is said to be a "high-single digit M subscriber level."

For investors, Apple TV+ could help drive an incremental EPS rise of $0.20 to $0.25 for every 10 million additional subscribers on top of the conservative estimates. The baseline forecasts imply EPS contributions of $0.11 for 2020 and $0.32 for 2021.

Follow AppleInsider on Google News

21 Comments

red oak

said about 4 years ago

Cash flow is what really matters. And this thing will be forever at break even. It will take 20 million subs just to cover $2 billion/yr content budget. And the treadmill just goes on forever

Just look at Netflix. Still cash flow negative

Net Income and EPS are an illusion here

tmay

said about 4 years ago

red oak said:

Cash flow is what really matters. And this thing will be forever at break even. It will take 20 million subs just to cover $2 billion/yr content budget. And the treadmill just goes on forever

Just look at Netflix. Still cash flow negative

Net Income and EPS are an illusion here

Strengthens the ecosystem, and Golden Globe and Emmy Noms will certainly catch the attention of the public, given the expected quality of the initial offerings.

mjtomlin

said about 4 years ago

red oak said:

Cash flow is what really matters. And this thing will be forever at break even. It will take 20 million subs just to cover $2 billion/yr content budget. And the treadmill just goes on forever

Just look at Netflix. Still cash flow negative

Net Income and EPS are an illusion here

I think Apple realizes this and that's why they pushed it onto 3rd party hardware. Still, they can subsidize the cost from their own hardware sales.

Apple is trying to play nice with 3rd party services (even though they're accused of not being so) and charging a fair fee for the service. The fact is, they have so much money they could undercut everyone. It'll be interesting to see if they do in fact offer "X months free service" for those that buy Apple devices, specifically the Apple TV. However, they did not do the same for Apple Music on the HomePod. So probably unlikely.

rogifan_new

said about 4 years ago

And how are they arriving at these figures besides just pulling them out of their rear end? Considering Apple will only have original programming it will have to be pretty damn compelling to get people to sign up when so many other offerings are out there. Netflix is in a world of hurt because of the stuff being removed from their platform.

Carmbo

said about 4 years ago

The beauty of digital distribution is that the additional cost of increasing volume is relatively low. It can work out to be a matter of less is more in that if you lower subscription cost which triggers a dramatic increase in subscribers, you can make more money by charging less. If you attract 10 million subscribers at say $9.99 a month yet attract 50 million subsribers at 5.99 a month, the math suggests $5.99 is the better option. The production spending one presumes is an annual number. So, let's look at the money brought in annually with those numbers. At $9.99 a month for 10 million subscribers, the amount annually is about $1.2 billion. At $5.99 a month for 50 million subscribers the amount climbs to about $3.6 billion. Assuming no extra cost in content acquisitiion and/or creation, it's unlikely the cost of accomodating an additional 40 million subscribers would approach $2.4 billion annually. If the infrastructure needed to handle many more subscribers is already in place, charging less to attract more subscribers is clearly the way to go.

Consider that if you charge so little that many subscribers to other streaming services sign on because it's such a small additional cost, your potential subscriber base is dramatically expanded. If instead of having to convince consumers to pick your streaming service instead of an alternative service like Netflix, you offer your service as a compliment, many more consumers would potentially sign up. Best of all, you are not forced to seek out additional content to justify a higher subscription cost. From the consumer's point of view, Apple is providing an appealing service at a great price, which is good for brand image.

Also, consumers already can have volume from established players in the streaming space. If all the participants struggle to produce a volume of offerings that justifies higher and higher subscription rates, the quality will be spread alarmingly thin. There is only so much quality production that can be conjured up. There is already a lot of junk served up as it is on services like Netflix. Lots of good content, sure, but a lot of filler, too. Apple shouldn't be looking to add to the junk pile.