streaming

Netflix plans to bring streaming into the $1 trillion club by 2030

ads, netflix, streaming, Tech / Tim Belzer / April 16, 2025

Netflix doesn’t plan to disclose subscriber counts anymore, but one of WSJ’s anonymous sources said that the streaming leader wants to have 410 million subscribers by 2030. That would require Netflix to add 108.4 million more subscribers than it reported at the end of 2024, or about 21.7 million per year, and expand its global reach. In 2024, Netflix added 41.36 million subscribers, including a record number of new subscribers in Q4 2024.

Netflix plans to release its Q1 2025 earnings report on April 17.

$1 trillion club hopeful

Should Netflix achieve its reported goals, it would be the first to join the $1 trillion club solely through streaming-related business. The club is currently populated mostly by tech brands, including two companies that own Netflix rivals: Apple and Amazon.

Netflix is, by far, the most likely streaming candidate to potentially enter the lucrative club. It’s currently beating all other video-streaming providers, including Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, in terms of revenue and profits. Some streaming businesses, including Apple TV+ and Peacock, still aren’t profitable yet.

Netflix’s reported striving for a $1 trillion market cap exemplifies the meteoric rise of streaming since Netflix launched its streaming service in 2007. As linear TV keeps shrinking, and streaming companies continue learning how to mimic the ads, live TV, and content strategies of their predecessors, the door is open for streaming firms to evolve into some of the world’s most highly valued media entities.

The potential for Netflix to have a trillion-dollar market cap also has notable implications for rivals Apple and Amazon, which both earned membership into the $1 trillion club without their streaming services.

Whether Netflix will reach the goals reported by WSJ is not guaranteed, but it will be interesting to watch how Netflix’s strategy for reaching that lofty goal affects subscribers. Further, with streaming set to be more central to the viewing of TV shows, movies, and live events by 2030, efforts around things like ads, pricing, and content libraries could impact media consumption as we head toward 2030.

Netflix plans to bring streaming into the $1 trillion club by 2030 Read More »

Turbulent global economy could drive up prices for Netflix and rivals

netflix, streaming, tariffs, Tech, united kingdom / Kris Guyer / April 12, 2025

“… our members are going to be punished.”

A scene from BBC’s Doctor Who. Credit: BBC/Disney+

Debate around how much taxes US-based streaming services should pay internationally, among other factors, could result in people paying more for subscriptions to services like Netflix and Disney+.

On April 10, the United Kingdom’s Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee reignited calls for a streaming tax on subscription revenue acquired through UK residents. The recommendation came alongside the committee’s 120-page report [PDF] that makes numerous recommendations for how to support and grow Britain’s film and high-end television (HETV) industry.

For the US, the recommendation garnering the most attention is one calling for a 5 percent levy on UK subscriber revenue from streaming video on demand services, such as Netflix. That’s because if streaming services face higher taxes in the UK, costs could be passed onto consumers, resulting in more streaming price hikes. The CMS committee wants money from the levy to support HETV production in the UK and wrote in its report:

The industry should establish this fund on a voluntary basis; however, if it does not do so within 12 months, or if there is not full compliance, the Government should introduce a statutory levy.

Calls for a streaming tax in the UK come after 2024’s 25 percent decrease in spending for UK-produced high-end TV productions and 27 percent decline in productions overall, per the report. Companies like the BBC have said that they lack funds to keep making premium dramas.

In a statement, the CMS committee called for streamers, “such as Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV+, and Disney+, which benefit from the creativity of British producers, to put their money where their mouth is by committing to pay 5 percent of their UK subscriber revenue into a cultural fund to help finance drama with a specific interest to British audiences.” The committee’s report argues that public service broadcasters and independent movie producers are “at risk,” due to how the industry currently works. More investment into such programming would also benefit streaming companies by providing “a healthier supply of [public service broadcaster]-made shows that they can license for their platforms,” the report says.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has said that it will respond to the CMS Committee’s report.

Streaming companies warn of higher prices

In response to the report, a Netflix spokesperson said in a statement shared by the BBC yesterday that the “UK is Netflix’s biggest production hub outside of North America—and we want it to stay that way.” Netflix reportedly claims to have spent billions of pounds in the UK via work with over 200 producers and 30,000 cast and crew members since 2020, per The Hollywood Reporter. In May 2024, Benjamin King, Netflix’s senior director of UK and Ireland public policy, told the CMS committee that the streaming service spends “about $1.5 billion” annually on UK-made content.

Netflix’s statement this week, responding to the CMS Committee’s levy, added:

… in an increasingly competitive global market, it’s key to create a business environment that incentivises rather than penalises investment, risk taking, and success. Levies diminish competitiveness and penalise audiences who ultimately bear the increased costs.

Adam Minns, executive director for the UK’s Association for Commercial Broadcasters and On-Demand Services (COBA), highlighted how a UK streaming tax could impact streaming providers’ content budgets.

“Especially in this economic climate, a levy risks impacting existing content budgets for UK shows, jobs, and growth, along with raising costs for businesses,” he said, per the BBC.

An anonymous source that The Hollywood Reporter described as “close to the matter” said that “Netflix members have already paid the BBC license fee. A levy would be a double tax on them and us. It’s unfair. This is a tariff on success. And our members are going to be punished.”

The anonymous source added: “Ministers have already rejected the idea of a streaming levy. The creation of a Cultural Fund raises more questions than it answers. It also begs the question: Why should audiences who choose to pay for a service be then compelled to subsidize another service for which they have already paid through the license fee. Furthermore, what determines the criteria for ‘Britishness,’ which organizations would qualify for funding … ?”

In May, Mitchel Simmons, Paramount’s VP of EMEA public policy and government affairs, also questioned the benefits of a UK streaming tax when speaking to the CMS committee.

“Where we have seen levies in other jurisdictions on services, we then see inflation in the market. Local broadcasters, particularly in places such as Italy, have found that the prices have gone up because there has been a forced increase in spend and others have suffered as a consequence,” he said at the time.

Tax threat looms largely on streaming companies

Interest in the UK putting a levy on streaming services follows other countries recently pushing similar fees onto streaming providers.

Music streaming providers, like Spotify, for example, pay a 1.2 percent tax on streaming revenue made in France. Spotify blamed the tax for a 1.2 percent price hike in the country issued in May. France’s streaming taxes are supposed to go toward the Centre National de la Musique.

Last year, Canada issued a 5 percent tax on Canadian streaming revenue that’s been halted as companies including Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, and Spotify battle it in court.

Lawrence Zhang, head of policy of the Centre for Canadian Innovation and Competitiveness at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation think tank, has estimated that a 5 percent streaming tax would result in the average Canadian family paying an extra CA$40 annually.

A streaming provider group called the Digital Media Association has argued that the Canadian tax “could lead to higher prices for Canadians and fewer content choices.”

“As a result, you may end up paying more for your favourite streaming services and have less control over what you can watch or listen to,” the Digital Media Association’s website says.

Streaming companies hold their breath

Uncertainty around US tariffs and their implications on the global economy have also resulted in streaming companies moving slower than expected regarding new entrants, technologies, mergers and acquisitions, and even business failures, Alan Wolk, co-founder and lead analyst at TVRev, pointed out today. “The rapid-fire nature of the executive orders coming from the White House” has a massive impact on the media industry, he said.

“Uncertainty means that deals don’t get considered, let alone completed,” Wolk mused, noting that the growing stability of the streaming industry overall also contributes to slowing market activity.

For consumers, higher prices for other goods and/or services could result in smaller budgets for spending on streaming subscriptions. Establishing and growing advertising businesses is already a priority for many US streaming providers. However, the realities of stingier customers who are less willing to buy multiple streaming subscriptions or opt for premium tiers or buy on-demand titles are poised to put more pressure on streaming firms’ advertising plans. Simultaneously, advertisers are facing pressures from tariffs, which could result in less money being allocated to streaming ads.

“With streaming platform operators increasingly turning to ad-supported tiers to bolster profitability—rather than just rolling out price increases—this strategy could be put at risk,” Matthew Bailey, senior principal analyst of advertising at Omdia, recently told Wired. He added:

Against this backdrop, I wouldn’t be surprised if we do see some price increases for some streaming services over the coming months.

Streaming service providers are likely to tighten their purse strings, too. As we’ve seen, this can result in price hikes and smaller or less daring content selection.

Streaming customers may soon be forced to reduce their subscriptions. The good news is that most streaming viewers are already accustomed to growing prices and have figured out which streaming services align with their needs around affordability, ease of use, content, and reliability. Customers may set higher standards, though, as streaming companies grapple with the industry and global changes.

Scharon is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica writing news, reviews, and analysis on consumer gadgets and services. She’s been reporting on technology for over 10 years, with bylines at Tom’s Hardware, Channelnomics, and CRN UK.

Turbulent global economy could drive up prices for Netflix and rivals Read More »

Napster to become a music-marketing metaverse firm after being sold for $207M

acquisition, napster, streaming, Tech / Tim Belzer / March 26, 2025

Infinite Reality, a media, ecommerce, and marketing company focused on 3D and AI-powered experiences, has entered an agreement to acquired Napster. That means that the brand originally launched in 1999 as a peer-to-peer (P2P) music file-sharing service is set to be reborn again. This time, new owners are reshaping the brand into one focused on marketing musicians in the metaverse.

Infinite announced today a definitive agreement to buy Napster for $207 million. The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company plans to turn Napster into a “social music platform that prioritizes active fan engagement over passive listening, allowing artists to connect with, own, and monetize the relationship with their fans.” Jon Vlassopulos, who became Napster CEO in 2022, will continue with his role at the brand.

Since 2016, Napster has been operating as a (legal) streaming service. It claims to have over 110 million high-fidelity tracks, with some supporting lossless audio. Napster subscribers can also listen offline and watch music videos. The service currently starts at $11 per month.

Since 2022, Napster has been owned by Web3 and blockchain firms Hivemind and Algorand. Infinite also develops Web3 tech, and CEO John Acunto told CNBC that Algorand’s blockchain background was appealing, as was Napster’s licenses for streaming millions of songs.

To market musicians, Infinite has numerous ideas for helping Napster users interact more with the platform than they do with the current music streaming service. The company shared goals of using Napster to offer “branded 3D virtual spaces where fans can enjoy virtual concerts, social listening parties, and other immersive and community-based experiences” and more “gamification.” Infinite also wants musicians to use Napster as a platform where fans can purchase tickets for performances, physical and virtual merchandise, and “exclusive digital content.” The 6-year-old firm also plans to offer artists abilities to use “AI-powered customer service, sales, and community management agents” and “enhanced analytics dashboards to better understand fan behavior” with Napster.

Napster to become a music-marketing metaverse firm after being sold for $207M Read More »

Apple loses $1B a year on prestigious, minimally viewed Apple TV+: report

Apple, Apple TV Plus, streaming, Tech / Rejus Almole / March 21, 2025

The Apple TV+ streaming service “is losing more than $1 billion annually,” according to The Information today.

The report also claimed that Apple TV+’s subscriber count reached “around 45 million” in 2024, citing the two anonymous sources.

Ars reached out to Apple for comment on the accuracy of The Information’s report and will update you if we hear back.

Per one of the sources, Apple TV+ has typically spent over $5 billion annually on content since 2019, when Apple TV+ debuted. Last year, though, Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly cut the budget by about $500 million. The reported numbers are similar to a July report from Bloomberg that claimed that Apple had spent over $20 billion on Apple TV+’s library. For comparison, Netflix has 301.63 million subscribers and expects to spend $18 billion on content in 2025.

In the year preceding Apple TV+’s debut, Apple services chief Eddy Cue reportedly pushed back on executive requests to be stingier with content spending, “a person with direct knowledge of the matter” told The Information.

But Cook started paying closer attention to Apple TV+’s spending after the 2022 Oscars, where the Apple TV+ original CODA won Best Picture. The award signaled the significance of Apple TV+ as a business.

Per The Information, spending related to Apple TV+ previously included lavish perks for actors and producers. Apple paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars per flight” to transport Apple TV+ actors and producers to promotional events, The Information said, noting that such spending “is common in Hollywood” but “more unusual at Apple.” Apple’s finance department reportedly pushed Apple TV+ executives to find better flight deals sometime around 2023.

In 2024, Cook questioned big-budget Apple TV+ films, like the $200 million Argylle, which he said failed to generate impressive subscriber boosts or viewership, per an anonymous “former Apple TV+ employee.” Cook reportedly cut about $500 million from the Apple TV+ content budget in 2024.

Apple loses $1B a year on prestigious, minimally viewed Apple TV+: report Read More »

“Awful”: Roku tests autoplaying ads loading before the home screen

ads, Roku, streaming, Tech, TVs / Tim Belzer / March 18, 2025

Owners of smart TVs and streaming sticks running Roku OS are already subject to video advertisements on the home screen. Now, Roku is testing what it might look like if it took things a step further and forced people to watch a video ad play before getting to the Roku OS home screen.

Reports of Roku customers seeing video ads automatically play before they could view the OS’ home screen started appearing online this week. A Reddit user, for example, posted yesterday: “I just turned on my Roku and got an … ad for a movie, before I got to the regular Roku home screen.” Multiple apparent users reported seeing an ad for the movie Moana 2. The ads have a close option, but some users appear to have not seen it.

When reached for comment, a Roku spokesperson shared a company statement that confirms that the autoplaying ads are expected behavior but not a permanent part of Roku OS currently. Instead, Roku claimed, it was just trying the ad capability out.

Roku’s representative said that Roku’s business “has and will always require continuous testing and innovation across design, navigation, content, and our first-rate advertising products,” adding:

Our recent test is just the latest example, as we explore new ways to showcase brands and programming while still providing a delightful and simple user experience.

Roku didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether it has plans to make autoplaying ads permanent on Roku OS, which devices are affected, why Roku decided to use autoplaying ads, or customer backlash.

“Awful”: Roku tests autoplaying ads loading before the home screen Read More »

Sonos’ streaming box is reportedly canceled. Good riddance.

ads, audio, Sonos, streaming, Tech, TVs / Mike M. / March 13, 2025

Opinion: The long-rumored Sonos streaming box wasn’t a good idea anyway.

Sonos has canceled plans to release a streaming box, The Verge reported today. The audio company never publicly confirmed that it was making a streaming set-top box, but rumors of its impending release have been floating around since November 2023. With everything that both Sonos and streaming users have going on right now, though, a Sonos-branded rival to the Apple TV 4K wasn’t a good idea anyway.

Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman was the first to report on Sonos’ purported streaming ambitions. He reported that Sonos’ device would be a black box that cost $150 to $200.

At first glance, it seemed like a reasonable idea. Sonos was facing increased competition for wireless speakers from big names like Apple and Bose. Meanwhile, Sonos speaker sales growth had slowed down, making portfolio diversification seem like a prudent way to protect business.

By 2025, however, the reported plans for Sonos’ streaming box sounded less reasonable and appealing, while the market for streaming devices had become significantly more competitive.

A saturated market

In February, The Verge, citing anonymous sources, reported that Sonos was now planning a streaming player that would “cost between $200 and $400.” That’s a lot to charge in a market where most people have already found their preferred platform. Those who want something cheap and don’t mind ads settle for something like Roku. People who hate ads opt for an Apple TV box. There are people who swear by their Fire Sticks and plenty who are happy with whatever operating system (OS) their smart TV arrives with. Sonos would have struggled to convince people who have successfully used some of those streaming devices for years that they suddenly need a new one that’s costlier than alternatives, including some smart TVs. In the US especially, the TV OS market is considered heavily saturated, presenting an uphill battle for newcomers.

Without Sonos ever confirming its streaming device, it’s hard to judge what the company would’ve offered to lure people to a new streaming platform. Perhaps the Sonos box could have worked better with Sonos devices than non-Sonos streaming devices. But vendor lock-in isn’t the best way to try to win new customers. That approach would also force Sonos to test if it’s accrued the type of customer loyalty as a company like Apple. Much of the goodwill needed for such customer loyalty was blatantly obliterated, though, during Sonos’ botched app update last year.

According to The Verge, Sonos’ box didn’t even have a standout appearance. The publication said that by February 2025, the box was “deep into development,” and “about as nondescript as streaming hardware gets.”

“Viewed from the top, the device is a flattened black square and slightly thicker than a deck of trading cards,” The Verge reported at the time, citing images it reviewed.

Among the most appealing planned features was unified content from various streaming apps, like Netflix and Max, with “universal search across streaming accounts.” With the growing number of streaming services required to watch all your favorite content, this would be a good way to attract streamers but not necessarily a unique one. The ability to offer a more unified streaming experience is already being tackled by various smart TV OSes, including Samsung Tizen and Amazon Fire OS, as well as the Apple TV app and sister streaming services, like Disney+ and Hulu.

A potentially ad-riddled OS

There’s reason to suspect that the software that Sonos’ streaming box would have come out with would’ve been ad-coddling, user-tracking garbage.

In January, Janko Roettgers reported that ad giant The Trade Desk was supplying Sonos with its “core smart TV OS and facilitating deals with app publishers,” while Sonos worked on the streaming box’s hardware and user interface. The Trade Desk makes one of the world’s biggest demand-side platforms and hasn’t made streaming software or hardware before.

Sonos opting for The Trade Desk’s OS would have represented a boastful commitment to advertisers. Among the features that The Trade Desk markets its TV OS as having are a “cleaner supply chain for streaming TV advertising” and “cross-platform content discovery,” something that Sonos was reportedly targeting for its streaming hardware.

When reached for comment, a Sonos spokesperson confirmed that Sonos was working with The Trade Desk, saying: “We don’t comment on our roadmap, but as has been previously announced we have a long-standing relationship with The Trade Desk and that relationship continues.”

Sonos should take a moment to regroup

It’s also arguable that Sonos has much more important things to do than try to convince people that they need expensive, iterative improvements to their streaming software and hardware. Sonos’ bigger focus should be on convincing customers that it can still handle its bread and butter, which is audio devices.

In November 2023, when word first dropped about Sonos’ reported streaming plans, there was no doubt that Sonos understood how to make quality speakers. But last year, Sonos tarnished its reputation by rushing an app update to coincide with its first wireless headphones, the Sonos Ace. The app’s launch will go down as one of the biggest app failures in history. Sonos employees would go on to say that Sonos rushed the update with insufficient testing, resulting in Sonos device owners suddenly losing key features, like accessibility capabilities and the abilities to edit song queues and playlists and access local music libraries. Owners of older Sonos devices, aka long-time Sonos customers, were the most affected. Amid the fallout, hundreds of people were laid off, Sonos’ market value dropped by $600 million, and the company pegged initial remediation costs at $20 million to $30 million.

At this point, Sonos’ best hope at recovering losses is restoring the customer trust and brand reputation that it took years to build and months to deplete.

Sonos could also use time to recover and distill lessons from its most recent attempt at entering a new device category. Likely due to the app controversy associated with the cans, the Ace hasn’t been meeting sales expectations, per a February report from The Verge citing anonymous sources. If Sonos should learn anything from the Ace, it’s that breaking into a new field requires time, patience, and incredible attention to detail, including how long-time and incoming customers want to use their gear.

Of course, financial blowback from the app debacle could be more directly behind why Sonos isn’t releasing a streaming box. Additionally, Sonos saw numerous executive changes following the app fiasco, including the departure of the CEO who greenlit the streaming box, Patrick Spence. New executive leaders, including a new chief product officer and chief marketing officer, could have different views on the value of Sonos to enter the streaming market too.

Sonos’ spokesperson didn’t answer Ars’ questions about Sonos’ reported plans to cancel the streaming box and whether the decision is related to the company’s app woes.

Sonos may have dodged a bullet

Ultimately, it didn’t sound like Sonos’ streaming box had the greatest potential to disrupt other TV streaming platforms already settled into people’s homes. It’s possible Sonos had other products that weren’t leaked. But the company would have had to come up with a unique and helpful feature in order to command a high price and compete with the likes of Apple’s TV 4K set-top box.

Even if Sonos came up with some killer feature or app for its streaming box, people are a lot less likely to gamble on a new product from the company now than they were before 2024’s app catastrophe. Sonos should prove that it can handle the basics before attempting to upcharge technologists for new streaming hardware.

Sonos’ streaming ambitions may only be off the table “for now,” new CEO Tom Conrad reportedly told employees today, per The Verge. But it’s probably best that Sonos focus its attention elsewhere for a while.

Sonos’ streaming box is reportedly canceled. Good riddance. Read More »

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints

ads, FCC, Policy, streaming, Tech / Tim Belzer / March 1, 2025

Streaming ads could get muzzled, too

As you may have noticed—either through the text of this article or your own ears—The Calm Act doesn’t apply to streaming services. And because The Calm Act doesn’t affect commercials viewed on the Internet, online services providing access to broadcast channels, like YouTube TV and Sling, don’t have to follow the rules. This is despite such services distributing the same content as linear TV providers.

For years, this made sense. The majority of TV viewing occurred through broadcast, cable, or satellite access. Further, services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video used to be considered safe havens from constant advertisements. But today, streaming services are more popular than ever and have grown to love ads, which have become critical to most platforms’ business models. Further, many streaming services are airing more live events. These events, like sports games, show commercials to all subscribers, even those with a so-called “ad-free” subscription.

Separate from the Calm Act violation complaints, the FCC noted this month that other recent complaints it has seen illustrate “growing concern with the loudness of commercials on streaming services and other online platforms.” If the FCC decides to apply Calm Act rules to the web, it would need to create new methods for ensuring compliance, it said.

TV viewing trends by platform bar graph by Nielsen. — Nielsen’s most recent data on how people watch TV. Credit: Nielsen

The FCC didn’t specify what’s behind the spike in consumers’ commercial complaints. Perhaps with declining audiences, traditional TV providers thought it would be less likely for anyone to notice and formally complain about Ozempic ads shouting at them. Twelve years have passed since the rules took effect, so it’s also possible that organizations are getting lackadaisical about ensuring compliance or have dwindling resources.

With Americans spending similar amounts of time—if not longer—watching TV online versus via broadcast, cable, and satellite, The Calm Act would have to take on the web in order to maximize effectiveness. The streaming industry is young, though, and operates differently than linear TV distribution, presenting new regulation challenges.

Commercials are still too loud, say “thousands” of recent FCC complaints Read More »

Streaming used to make stuff networks wouldn’t. Now it wants safer bets.

amazon prime video, culture, Disney Plus, netflix, peacock, streaming, Tech / Paul Patrick / February 13, 2025

Opinion: Streaming gets more cable-like with new focus on live events, mainstream content.

A scene from The OA. Credit: Netflix

There was a time when it felt like you needed a streaming subscription in order to contribute to watercooler conversations. Without Netflix, you couldn’t react to House of Cards’ latest twist. Without Hulu, you couldn’t comment on how realistic The Handmaid’s Tale felt, and you needed Prime Video to prefer The Boys over the latest Marvel movies. In the earlier days of streaming, when streaming providers were still tasked with convincing customers that streaming was viable, streaming companies strived to deliver original content that lured customers.

But today, the majority of streaming services are struggling with profitability, and the Peak TV era, a time when TV programming budgets kept exploding and led to iconic original series like Game of Thrones, is over. This year, streaming companies are pinching pennies. This means they’re trying harder to extract more money from current subscribers through ads and changes to programming strategies that put less emphasis on original content.

What does that mean for streaming subscribers, who are increasingly paying more? And what does it mean for watercooler chat and media culture when the future of TV increasingly looks like TV’s past, with a heightened focus on live events, mainstream content, and commercials?

Streaming offered new types of shows and movies—from the wonderfully weird to uniquely diverse stories—to anyone with a web connection and a few dollars a month. However, more conservative approaches to original content may cause subscribers to miss out on more unique, niche programs that speak to diverse audiences and broader viewers’ quirkier interests.

Streaming companies are getting more stingy

To be clear, streaming services are expected to spend more on content this year than last year. Ampere Analysis predicted in January that streaming services’ programming budgets will increase by 0.4 percent in 2025 to $248 billion. That’s slower growth than what occurred in 2024 (2 percent), which was fueled by major events, including the 2024 Summer Olympics and US presidential election. Ampere also expects streaming providers to spend more than linear TV channels will on content for the first time ever this year. But streaming firms are expected to change how they distribute their content budgets, too.

Peter Ingram, research manager at Ampere Analysis, expects that streaming services will spend about 35 percent on original scripted programming in 2025, down from 45 percent in 2022, per Ampere’s calculations.

Amazon Prime Video is reportedly “buying fewer film and TV projects than they have in the past,” according to a January report from The Information citing eight unnamed producers who are either working with or have worked with Amazon in the last two years. The streaming service has made some of the most expensive original series ever and is reportedly under pressure from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy to reach profitability by the end of 2025, The Information said, citing two unnamed sources. Prime Video will reportedly focus more on live sports events, which brings revenue from massive viewership and ads (that even subscribers to Prime Video’s ad-free tier will see).

Amazon has denied The Information’s reporting, with a spokesperson claiming that the number of Prime Video projects “grew from 2023 to 2024” and that Prime Video expects “the same level of growth” in 2025. But after expensive moves, like Amazon’s $8.5 billion MGM acquisition and projects with disproportionate initial returns, like Citadel, it’s not hard to see why Prime Video might want to reduce content spending, at least temporarily.

Prime Video joins other streaming services in the push for live sports to reach or improve profitability. Sports rights accounted for 4 percent of streaming services’ content spending in 2021, and Ampere expects that to reach 11 percent in 2025, Ingram told Ars:

These events offer services new sources of content that have pre-built fan followings, (helping to bring in new users to a platform) while also providing existing audiences with a steady stream of weekly content installments to help them remain engaged long-term.

Similarly, Disney, whose content budget includes theatrical releases and content for networks like The Disney Channel in addition to what’s on Disney+, has been decreasing content spending since 2022, when it spent $33 billion. In 2025, Disney plans to spend about $23 billion on content. Discussing the budget cut with investors earlier this month, CFO Hugh Johnston said Disney’s focused “on identifying opportunities where we’re spending money perhaps less efficiently and looking for opportunities to do it more efficiently.”

Further heightening the importance of strategic content spending for streaming businesses is the growing number of services competing for subscription dollars.

“There has been an overall contraction within the industry, including layoffs,” Dan Green, director of the Master of Entertainment Industry Management program at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College & College of Fine Arts, told Ars. “Budgets are looked at more closely and have been reined in.”

Peacock, for example, has seen its biggest differentiator come not from original series (pop quiz: what’s your favorite Peacock original?) but from the Summer Olympics. A smaller streaming service compared to Netflix or Prime Video, Peacock’s spending on content went from tripling from 2021 to 2023 to an expected 12 percent growth rate this year and 3 percent next year, per S&P Global Market Intelligence. The research firm estimated last year that original content will represent less than 25 percent of Peacock’s programming budget over the next five years.

Tyler Aquilina, a media analyst at the Variety Intelligence Platform (VIP+) research firm, told me that smaller services are more likely to reduce original content spending but added:

Legacy media companies like Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and Warner Bros. Discovery are, to a certain degree, in the same boat as Netflix: the costs of sports rights keep rising, so they will need to spend less on other content in order to keep their content budgets flat or trim them.

Streaming services are getting less original

Data from entertainment research firm Luminate’s 2024 Year-End Film & TV Report found a general decline in the number of drama series ordered by streaming services and linear channels between 2019 (304) and 2024 (285). The report also noted a 27 percent drop in the number of drama series episodes ordered from 2019 (3,393) to 2024 (2,492).

Beyond dramas, comedy series orders have been declining the past two years, per Luminate’s data. From 2019 to 2024, “the number of total series has declined by 39 percent, while the number of episodes/hours is down by 47 percent,” Luminate’s report says.

And animated series “have been pummeled over the past few years to an all-time low” with the volume of cartoons down 31 percent in 2024 compared to 2023, per the report.

The expected number of new series releases this year, per Luminate. Credit: Luminate Film & TV

Aquilina at VIP+, a Luminate sister company, said: “As far as appealing to customers, the reality is that the enormous output of the Peak TV era was not a successful business strategy; Luminate data has shown original series viewership on most platforms (other than Netflix) is often concentrated among a small handful of shows.” While Netflix is slightly increasing content spending from 2024 to 2025, it’s expected that “less money will be going toward scripted originals as the company spends more on sports rights and other live events,” the analyst said.

Streaming services struggle to make money with original content

The streaming industry is still young, meaning companies are still determining the best way to turn streaming subscriptions into successful businesses. The obvious formula of providing great content so that streamers get more subscribers and make more money isn’t as direct as it seems. One need only look at Apple TV+’s critically acclaimed $20 billion library that only earned 0.3 percent of US TV screen viewing time in June 2024, per Nielsen, to understand the complexities of making money off of quality content.

When it comes to what is being viewed on streaming services, the top hits are often things that came out years ago or are old network hits, such as Suits, a USA Network original series that ended in 2019 and was the most-streamed show in 2023, per Nielsen, or The Big Bang Theory, a CBS show that ended in 2019 and was the most binged show in 2024, per Nielsen, or Little House on the Prairie, which ended in 1983 and Nielsen said was streamed for 13.25 billion minutes on Peacock last year.

There’s also an argument for streaming services to make money off low-budget (often old) content streamed idly in the background. Perceived demand for background content is considered a driver for growing adoption of free ad-supported streaming TV (FAST) channels like Tubi and the generative AI movies that TCL’s pushing on its FAST channels.

Meanwhile, TVs aren’t watched the way they used to be. Social media and YouTube have gotten younger audiences accustomed to low-budget, short videos, including videos summarizing events from full-length original series and movies. Viral video culture has impacted streaming and TV viewing, with YouTube consistently dominating streaming viewing time in the US and revealing this week that TVs are the primary device used to watch YouTube. Companies looking to capitalize on these trends may find less interest in original, high-budget scripted productions.

The wonderfully weird at risk

Streaming opened the door for many shows and movies to thrive that would likely not have been made or had much visibility through traditional distribution means. From the wonderfully weird like The OA and Big Mouth, to experimental projects like Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, to shows from overseas, like Squid Game, and programs that didn’t survive on network TV, like Futurama, streaming led to more diverse content availability and surprise hits than what many found on broadcast TV.

If streaming services are more particular about original content, the result could be that subscribers miss out on more of the artistic, unique, and outlandish projects that helped make streaming feel so exciting at first. Paramount, for example, said in 2024 that a reduced programming budget would mean less local-language content in foreign markets and more focus on domestic hits with global appeal.

Carnegie Mellon University’s Green agreed that tighter budgets could potentially lead to “less diverse storytelling being available.”

“What will it take for a new, unproven storyteller (writer) to break through without as many opportunities available? Instead, there may be more emphasis on outside licensed content, and perhaps some creators will be drawn to bigger checks from some of the larger streamers,” he added.

Elizabeth Parks, president and CMO at Parks Associates, a research firm focused on IoT, consumer electronics, and entertainment, noted that “many platforms are shifting focus toward content creation rather than new curated, must-watch originals,” which could create a”more fragmented, less compelling viewer experience with diminishing differentiation between platforms.”

As streaming services more aggressively seek live events, like award shows and sporting events, and scripted content with broader appeal, they may increasingly mirror broadcast TV.

“The decision by studios to distribute their own content to competitors… shows how content is being monetized beyond just driving direct subscriptions,” Parks said. “This approach borrows from traditional TV syndication models and signals a shift toward maximizing content value over time, instead of exclusive content.”

Over the next couple of years, we can expect streaming services to be more cautious about content investments. Services will be less interested in providing a bounty of original exclusives and more focused on bottom lines. They will need “to ensure that spend does not outpace revenues, and platforms can maintain attractive profit margins,” Ampere’s Ingram explained. Original hit shows will still be important, but we’ll likely see fewer gambles and more concerted efforts toward safer bets at mainstream appeal.

For streaming customers who are fatigued with the number of services available and dissatisfied with content quality, it’s a critical time for streaming services to prove that they’re an improvement over other traditional TV and not just giving us the same ol’, same ol’.

“The streaming services that most appeal to customers host robust libraries of content that people want to watch, and as long as that’s the case, they’ll continue to do so. That’s why Netflix and Disney are still the top streamers,” Ingram said.

Streaming used to make stuff networks wouldn’t. Now it wants safer bets. Read More »

The Severance writer and cast on corporate cults, sci-fi, and more

Adam Scott, Apple, Apple TV, culture, Features, sci-fi, severance, streaming, TV / Tim Belzer / February 1, 2025

The following story contains light spoilers for season one of Severence but none for season 2.

The first season of Severance walked the line between science-fiction thriller and Office Space-like satire, using a clever conceit (characters can’t remember what happens at work while at home, and vice versa) to open up new storytelling possibilities.

It hinted at additional depths, but it’s really season 2’s expanded worldbuilding that begins to uncover additional themes and ideas.

After watching the first six episodes of season two and speaking with the series’ showrunner and lead writer, Dan Erickson, as well as a couple of members of the cast (Adam Scott and Patricia Arquette), I see a show that’s about more than critiquing corporate life. It’s about all sorts of social mechanisms of control. It’s also a show with a tremendous sense of style and deep influences in science fiction.

Corporation or cult?

When I started watching season 2, I had just finished watching two documentaries about cults—The Vow, about a multi-level marketing and training company that turned out to be a sex cult, and Love Has Won: The Cult of Mother God, about a small, Internet-based religious movement that believed its founder was the latest human form of God.

There were hints of cult influences in the Lumon corporate structure in season 1, but without spoiling anything, season 2 goes much deeper into them. As someone who has worked at a couple of very large media corporations, I enjoyed Severance’s send-up of corporate culture. And as someone who has worked in tech startups—both good and dysfunctional ones—and who grew up in a radical religious environment, I now enjoy its send-up of cult social dynamics and power plays.

Employees watch a corporate propaganda video — Lumon controls what information is presented to its employees to keep them in line. Credit: Apple

When I spoke with showrunner Dan Erickson and actor Patricia Arquette, I wasn’t surprised to learn that it wasn’t just me—the influence of stories about cults on season 2 was intentional.

Erickson explained:

I watched all the cult documentaries that I could find, as did the other writers, as did Ben, as did the actors. What we found as we were developing it is that there’s this weird crossover. There’s this weird gray zone between a cult and a company, or any system of power, especially one where there is sort of a charismatic personality at the top of it like Kier Eagan. You see that in companies that have sort of a reverence for their founder.

Arquette also did some research on cults. “Very early on when I got the pilot, I was pretty fascinated at that time with a lot of cult documentaries—Wild Wild Country, and I don’t know if you could call it a cult, but watching things about Scientology, but also different military schools—all kinds of things like that with that kind of structure, even certain religions,” she recalled.

The Severance writer and cast on corporate cults, sci-fi, and more Read More »

New year, same streaming headaches: Netflix raises prices by up to 16 percent

netflix, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / January 21, 2025

Today Netflix, the biggest streaming service based on subscriber count, announced that it will increase subscription prices by up to $2.50 per month.

In a letter to investors [PDF], Netflix announced price changes starting today in the US, Canada, Argentina, and Portugal.

People who subscribe to Netflix’s cheapest ad-free plan (Standard) will see the biggest increase in monthly costs. The subscription will go from $15.49/month to $17.99/month, representing a 16.14 percent bump. The subscription tier allows commercial-free streaming for up to two devices and maxes out at 1080p resolution. It’s Netflix’s most popular subscription in the US, Bloomberg noted.

Netflix’s Premium ad-free tier has cost $22.99/month but is going up 8.7 percent to $24.99/month. The priciest Netflix subscription supports simultaneous streaming for up to four devices, downloads on up to six devices, 4K resolution, HDR, and spatial audio.

Finally, Netflix’s Standard With Ads tier will go up by $1, or 14.3 percent, to $7.99/month. This tier supports streaming from up to two devices and up to 1080p resolution. In Q4 2024, this subscription represented “over 55 percent of sign-ups” in countries where it’s available and generally grew “nearly 30 percent quarter over quarter,” Netflix said in its quarterly letter to investors.

“As we continue to invest in programming and deliver more value for our members, we will occasionally ask our members to pay a little more so that we can re-invest to further improve Netflix,” Netflix’s letter reads.

New year, same streaming headaches: Netflix raises prices by up to 16 percent Read More »

Disney, Fox, and WBD give up on controversial sports streaming app Venu

antitrust, DirectTV, DISH, Disney, Fox, sports, streaming, Uncategorized, warner bros. discovery / Mike M. / January 11, 2025

Although Fubo’s lawsuit against the JV appears to be settled, other rivals in sports television seemed intent on continuing to fight Venu.

In a January 9 letter (PDF) to US District Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the Southern District in New York, who granted Fubo’s premliminary injunction against Venu, Michael Hartman, general counsel and chief external affairs officer for DirectTV, wrote that Fubo’s settlement “does nothing to resolve the underlying antitrust violations at issue.” Hartman asked the court to maintain the preliminary injunction against the app’s launch.

“The preliminary injunction has protected consumers and distributors alike from the JV Defendant’s scheme to ‘capture demand,’ ‘suppress’ potentially competitive sports bundles, and impose consumer price hikes,” the letter says, adding that DirectTV would continue to explore its options regarding the JV “and other anticompetitive harms.”

Similarly, Pantelis Michalopoulos, counsel for EchoStar Corporation, which owns Dish, penned a letter (PDF) to Garnett on January 7, claiming the members of the JV “purchased their way out of their antitrust violation.” Michalopoulos added that the JV defendants “should not be able to pay their way into erasing the Court’s carefully reasoned decision” to temporarily block Venu’s launch.

In addition to Fubo, DirecTV, and Dish, ACA Connects (a trade association for small- to medium-sized telecommunication service providers) publicly expressed concerns about Venu. NFL was also reported to be worried about the implications of the venture.

Now, the three giants behind Venu are throwing in the towel and abandoning an app that could have garnered a lot of subscribers tired of hopping around apps, channels, and subscriptions to watch all the sports content they wanted. But they’re also avoiding a lot of litigation and potential backlash in the process.

Disney, Fox, and WBD give up on controversial sports streaming app Venu Read More »

Disney makes antitrust problem go away by buying majority stake in Fubo

Disney, Hulu, mergers, sports, streaming, Tech / Mike M. / January 6, 2025

Fubo’s about-face

Fubo’s merger with Disney represents a shocking about-face for the sports-streaming provider, which previously had raised alarms (citing Citi research) about Disney’s ownership of 54 percent of the US sports rights market—ESPN (26.8 percent), Fox (17.3 percent), and WBD (9.9 percent). Fubo successfully got a preliminary injunction against Venu in August, and a trial was scheduled for October 2025.

Fubo CEO David Gandler said in February that Disney, Fox, and WBD “are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors.

“Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers, and cheat consumers from deserved choice,” Gandler also said at the time.

Now, set to be a Disney company, Fubo is singing a new tune, with its announcement claiming that the merger “will enhance consumer choice by making available a broad set of programming offerings.”

In a statement today, Gandler added that the merger will allow Fubo to “provide consumers with greater choice and flexibility” and “to scale effectively,” while adding that the deal “strengthens Fubo’s balance sheet” and sets Fubo up for “positive cash flow.”

Ars Technica reached out to Fubo about its previously publicized antitrust and anticompetitive concerns, whether or not those concerns had been addressed, and new concerns that it has settled its lawsuit in favor of its own business needs rather than over a resolution of customer choice problems. Jennifer Press, Fubo SVP of communications, responded to our questions with a statement, saying in part:

We filed an antitrust suit against the Venu Sports partners last year because that product was intended to be exclusive. As its partners announced last year, consumers would only have access to the Venu content package from Venu, which would limit choice and competitive pricing.

The definitive agreement that Fubo signed with Disney today will actually bring more choice to the market. As part of the deal, Fubo extended carriage agreements with Disney and also Fox, enabling Fubo to create a new Sports and Broadcast service and other genre-based content packages. Additionally, as the antitrust litigation has been settled, the Venu Sports partners can choose to launch that product if they wish. The launch of these bundles will enhance consumer choice by making available a broad set of programming offerings.

“… a total deception”

Some remain skeptical about Disney buying out a company that was suing it over antitrust concerns.

Disney makes antitrust problem go away by buying majority stake in Fubo Read More »