Twitter

If I told you that the world’s most powerful CEO had assembled a team including a woman whose touch turns things to gold, a man who created a dinosaur theme park, and a giant talking bird, I’ve either described a collection of Batman villains or…

…Apple’s debut of “Apple TV+” in Cupertino.

As Meghan O’Keefe reported, it wasn’t a team of super villains but Apple trotting our their biggest stars to announce a plan their launch into TV. That something will have channels, a lot of original content and will start in April (or the fall). So yeah, the cavalcade of stars that Tim “Apple” Cook brought out—Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Big Bird, Jason Momoa, Reese and Jennifer—was probably the most notable part of the Apple TV+ part of the presentation.

I was probably too strong though, in saying that “Apple told us nothing.” They told us some things, and there are enough rumors and hints floating around out there that we could speculate on even more. As I took in the news, I started developing theories. But I have to warn you, some of these theories are pretty crackpot. Like, kinda insane. And if you’re talking about a series of insane theories, and since I just mentioned Batman, well that’s going to be my organizing principle:

My 6 crazy theories about Apple TV (and how crazy they are on the “Batman Villain Insanity Scale”)

Before we get started, know that these are just my predictions—I don’t have any inside info, just my take on the strategic landscape—and the more insane they are, the less likely they are to happen. So now, without further ado…

Theory: Apple Channels will have bundles.

The most obvious theory, to me at least, is that when Apple TV launches, instead of trying to make you pick and choose between “CBS All-Access or Shudder?”, they’ll just let you subscribe to big bundles of over-the-top services, all for one low price.

I like this theory because I could see a point of differentiation between themselves and Amazon Channels or Roku, who make you decide what channels to subscribe to. The reason Apple can do this is because they can pay full fees for all the channels and afford to lose money for a long time. (Though, just because they can afford to do so, doesn’t make this a smart strategy, from an investor perspective.) And if they bundle channels, bundling all their services together can’t be too far behind.

How crazy is this?

(Why The Riddler? He’s not the most insane, just driven to outwit Batman. But it’s crazy for him to think he can.)

Theory: Apple Channels will Launch with Disney+ (whenever Disney+ launches)

Apple is already rumored to want to be in the “family-friendly” content business. (And they even brought Big Bird to the show.) And the focus on the family was an element in their presentation: the idea that a family could subscribe to “Apple TV” and have up to six accounts. Clearly, they think see high-income families as a core demographic.

Hey, that describes Disney! And for years—heck, even now—Apple was rumored to want to buy Disney. But now that Disney has swallowed Fox whole, bringing its market capitalization to $200 billion (give or take), that’s a lot harder for Apple to do.

So what could they do instead? Well, just have Disney Plus available whenever it launches. Even if Disney Plus tries to prioritize Hulu as bundler of choice (see my article on that here), I think Apple will make them an offer they can’t refuse. I also think Apple is in such a hurry to sign up partners it will sacrifice deal terms to get it done.

How crazy is this?

(Why Victor Zsasz? Because he’s a serial killer, which means crazy, but not as nuts as some of the people we’ll see.)

Theory: Apple Will Have a Live TV Component Soon

This was a piece that was notably missing from their presentation. There was a lot of OTT options from CBS All-Access to HBO. But what about the cheap, free streamers like Pluto TV or Tubi? Are they going to be join? What about live sports? Or news?

At least, as of the presentation, the answer is no.

My theory is live TV is a feature that Apple is working on. The main challenge is that streaming video is tough, but streaming live TV is much tougher. And the downsides of failure are serious. Hulu lost feeds for the Super Bowl in 2018. The Super Bowl! Amazon suffered outages of tennis matches of the US Open last year and got similar blowback. If you offer Live TV, you need 100% accuracy at the times of peak usage, which is a demand challenge for any tech company, even Apple.

Yet the rewards are too big to ignore. If Disney Plus is along for the ride, ESPN Plus can’t be too far behind. Otherwise, imagine the huge win for Hulu as the main home for ESPN Plus? That would be a key differentiator for them. (In addition to ESPN Plus, other streaming sports channels like DAZN or WWE are available.) My gut says we’ll hear rumors of a 2020 launch of live TV by the end of the year.

How crazy is this?

(Why Penguin? I mean, he uses umbrellas for weapons and lives in the sewer. That’s pretty nuts.)

Theory: Apple TV will NOT go on Android mobile devices

The pre-show big news from January was that many smart TVs will carry Apple TV, ranging from Visio to Samsung to LG. That’s a win-win for both Apple and the TV manufacturers: none of the TV manufacturers plan to launch their own streaming channels, and Apple needs distribution. (Plus they would likely lose money making their own TV.)

If part of Apple’s logic is, “We can lose some money on services to sell more devices”, well even the TVs will help sell iPhones or iPads because that will become your remote. But that doesn’t apply to Android phones. If you’re losing money on services, and not selling devices, then you’re just losing money. That said, this is still kinda crazy because if Apple has really decided to sell services everywhere, well Android has to be a part of that. For now, though, I bet they don’t.

How insane is this?

(Why Scarecrow? He both makes people insane, and used his own insanity gas. Lots of crazy here.)

Theory: Apple Will Buy Sony (or someone) because it needs a content library

Now we’re talking crazy town! I mentioned above that Apple was rumored at various times to buy Disney, and before that Netflix, but now both are a bit too big to make that easy (or easy to pass antitrust scrutiny).

Still, Apple will need licensed content to launch its “Apple Plus” service. It’s fine to say originals will draw people in—they will—but you need a cheap way to get them to stick around.

Think about it: you hear that Steven Spielberg’s newest show is up on Apple TV+. You go to see what you get for a $10 a month subscription (though we don’t know the prices yet), and it is…just that show? Or say they launch with ten shows, and 8 are poorly reviewed, and of the two good shows, you only want to watch one. Is that worth $10? (Or whatever they decide?)

This shows up in the analysis of third party firms researching what people watch on services like Netflix. Even as original content grows, library content—which is still cheaper—accounts for a lot of hours of viewing.

I chose Sony for two reasons. First, a lot of current Apple TV executives came from Sony, so they know the company. Second, Sony’s leadership has been rumored to want to sell the studio for years now. Apple has the deep pockets to make it happen. (If not Sony, other candidates include AMC Networks and Discovery-Scripps, who are smaller companies with big libraries.) (Fine, third, I’m not the only one predicting this, as Variety predicted here. Would still be totally crazy though.)

How insane is this?

(Why Two-Face? Two-Face has a split personality and kills people because a coin tells him to.)

Theory: This is the end of Netflix, and we don't even know it.

One of the best technology writers is Ben Thompson at Stratechery. To summarize one of his main theories: the winners in technology are those who aggregate. Because of network effects—the bigger you are, the more powerful you become, which only makes you bigger and so on—the more you can aggregate the better. He cites Google in search or Facebook in social or Amazon in shopping. He also cites, simultaneously, both YouTube and Netflix.

I’d agree at first that Netflix indeed aggregated a lot. In the beginning of its streaming times, it could license whole content libraries for pennies, because the traditional studios considered it a bonus source of additional revenue. And it really was the only OTT game in town. That isn’t the case anymore.

Amazon channels has a similar list for their offering. Hulu has a larger OTT bundle, but also offers HBO, Showtime and Starz. (Likely more will come.) None of those bundlers, though have Netflix.

That’s because Netflix doesn’t want to be bundled. It doesn’t want to show up on that list. It wants to be the aggregator and seen as the sole source for television.

And that’s crucial, because if it eventually becomes one of those channels, then it is no longer the king, just the biggest streaming video channel (SVOD). The analogy would be that Netflix will be the CBS or HBO of the future, but Apple or Amazon will be the Comcast or DirecTV (which make more money). Then Netflix becomes just another streamer to churn in and out of. If the streamers are replaced by the bundlers, what happens to Netflix’s share price?

How INSANE is this?!?

Now, this is Joker Level Insanity because Netflix isn’t going anywhere. Even if it loses its place as the most valuable of all media companies (actually second by market capitalization after Disney), it won’t disappear. It is here to stay.

Yet, I continue to be perplexed at the lack of innovation in certain areas of its business model. Netflix refuses to consider live TV like sports or news, free ad-supported models, and, especially, bundling. Moreover, Netflix’s biggest competitors—Amazon, Google and now Apple—make profits and cash. Netflix loses billions every year. And depending how you count Amazon, Google and Apple have as many “members/subscribers/users” as Netflix. (Apple has 1.4 billion devices globally, Google has 1.3 billion use Youtube and Amazon has at least 100 million Prime Members, with many more non-prime shoppers.) If they an convert users and devices into subscriptions, watch out.

So was Monday the beginning of the end for Netflix? That’s Joker-level insanity, but it is the question of the week.

The Entertainment Strategy Guy writes under this pseudonym at his eponymous website. A former exec at a streaming company, he prefers writing to sending emails/attending meetings, so he launched his own website. You can follow him on Twitter or Linked-In for regular thoughts and analysis on the business, strategy and economics of the media and entertainment industry.