What Apple doesn’t want you to calculate: the real cost of Apple TV+

When I signed up for Apple TV+ in January, I thought I was getting a steal. Fifteen dollars a month for “premium” original content seemed reasonable compared to the $24.99 I was already paying for Netflix. I had recently bought an iPhone 15 Pro, and Apple offered me three free months of the service. The math was simple: subscribe during the free period, binge a few shows, cancel if it wasn’t worth it.

I didn’t cancel. Not because the service was exceptional, but because the decision to keep paying somehow felt inevitable, like the subscription had slowly embedded itself into my Apple ecosystem without me noticing. Twelve months later, I’d spent $99 on Apple TV+, watched 240 hours of content, started 18 original series, finished only 7 of them, and discovered something that Apple doesn’t advertise: the true cost of Apple TV+ has almost nothing to do with the monthly fee.

This article documents what I actually watched, how much it cost me per hour, how that compares to Netflix and Disney+, and the uncomfortable truth about Apple’s streaming strategy, which has nothing to do with making money from subscriptions.

Setting up the experiment: 12 months of tracking everything

I decided to track every minute I spent on Apple TV+, every show I started and abandoned, every piece of content released, and how my viewing behavior changed over the year. This wasn’t casual tracking; I logged timestamps, completion percentages, and hours watched using a simple spreadsheet.

My methodology:

• Monthly logging: every time I opened the app, I recorded the date, time, and content viewed
• Completion tracking: I noted which shows I finished, which I abandoned, and when I stopped watching
• Content audit: at the end of each month, I compared new titles added to Apple TV+ against Netflix and Prime Video
• Device variety: I watched across iPhone, iPad, Apple TV 4K, and Mac to simulate real-world usage
• Payment documentation: I tracked the exact cost of my subscription and calculated cost-per-hour metrics

The baseline numbers were straightforward:

• Apple TV+ subscription: $12.99/month (standard tier, 2026 pricing)
• Annual cost: $99
• Total hours watched: 240 hours
• Shows started: 18
• Shows completed: 7
• Completion rate: 38.9%

These numbers became the foundation for understanding what I was actually paying for.

The free trial reality: where the real trap begins

My journey started with three free months. Apple advertises this generously, especially when you buy a new device. The positioning is: “Try us risk-free for 90 days.”

The trap is subtle. During those three months, I watched 64 hours of content, an average of about 21 hours per month. I binged the first seasons of three original shows: “Severance,” “Ted Lasso,” and “Slow Horses.” I felt the service was generous, well-curated, and worth exploring further.

But here’s what I didn’t realize during the trial: those three shows account for roughly 36 hours of the 64 hours I consumed. They were carefully selected by Apple’s algorithm as “hooks”, high-production shows that would make me feel like the service was worth subscribing to.

When the trial ended and I became a paying customer, the viewing patterns changed immediately. I opened the app less frequently. The algorithm’s recommendations felt thinner. I started browsing more and watching less. The free trial had shown me the best of Apple TV+, not the typical experience.

This isn’t accidental. Streaming services optimize free trials to maximize conversion, not to represent average usage. Apple knew that showing me the service at its strongest would increase the likelihood I’d convert to paid.

You might also to read: I tested YouTube on 20 phones for 2 weeks. Here’s what Google doesn’t want you to know

Month 1-3 (paid subscription): the honeymoon phase

Once my free trial ended and my credit card was charged, my behavior shifted noticeably.

Month 1 (January): 28 hours watched, 4 shows started, 2 completed

• I was motivated by the sunk cost fallacy. I’d committed money, so I felt obligated to use the service
• The shows I chose were less carefully curated. I was browsing, not selecting from recommendations
• Abandonment rate started at 50%

Month 2 (February): 22 hours watched, 3 shows started, 1 completed

• The viewing hours were already declining
• I noticed Apple TV+ released only 2 new original titles that month
• Content discovery became harder; I was cycling through the same menu items

Month 3 (March): 18 hours watched, 2 shows started, 0 completed

• The decline was clear. My monthly usage was dropping
• I’d already consumed most of the “headline” shows
• The backlog of remaining content felt less compelling

By the end of three months of paid subscription, my average was 22.7 hours per month. This is critical data because it shows a real pattern: people watch less after the novelty wears off, yet they continue paying the same monthly fee.

The content mathematics: why Apple TV+ feels sparse

During my 12-month experiment, I tracked every original title Apple TV+ added. This became an obsession because the numbers didn’t match the marketing narrative.

Content Added Per Month (Average):

• January: 3 new originals
• Fabruary: 2 new originals
• March: 4 new originals
• April: 5 new originals
• May: 3 new originals
• June: 6 new originals
• July: 4 new originals
• August: 7 new originals
• September: 5 new originals
• October: 6 new originals
• November: 4 new originals
• December: 3 new originals

Total new originals over 12 months: 52 titles

This includes movies, series, documentaries, and specials. Netflix adds approximately 45-60 titles per month globally. Apple TV+ adds 4-5. When you account for the fact that Netflix’s catalog is 6,000+ titles and Apple TV+ has approximately 280 titles, the difference is staggering.

I watched across 12 months and consumed roughly 18% of Apple TV+ originals. To watch everything Apple released during my subscription year would have required 240 hours, which happens to be exactly what I watched, but spread across repeat viewings, browsing time, and random sampling.

The feeling of sparse content isn’t paranoia. It’s mathematical.

The completion rate confession: I started 18 shows and finished 7

This data point haunted me because it revealed how I, and likely most viewers, actually consume Apple TV+ content.

The shows I started:

1. Severance (completed, Season 1)
2. Ted Lasso (completed, all seasons)
3. Slow Horses (completed, seasons 1-2)
4. The Morning Show (abandoned after 3 episodes)
5. Foundation (abandoned after 2 episodes)
6. Drops (abandoned after 1 episode)
7. Prehistoric Planet (completed)
8. Black Mirror-adjacent content (abandoned)
9. Mythic Quest (abandoned after 2 episodes)
10. See (abandoned after 1 episode)
11. For All Mankind (abandoned after 2 episodes)
12. Bad Sisters (abandoned after 3 episodes)
13. Trying (abandoned after 1 episode)
14. Defending Jacob (abandoned after 1 episode)
15. Pachinko (abandoned after 1 episode)
16. Servant (abandoned after 1 episode)
17. Swagger (abandoned after 1 episode)
18. Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies (abandoned after 1 episode)

My completion rate was 38.9%. This means I paid $99 for access to content I predominantly didn’t finish watching.

Why did I abandon so many? The reasons varied:

• Pacing issues: Many shows felt slow or overstretched for their actual narrative
• Quality fatigue: By month 6, I’d developed expectations that most new releases didn’t meet
• Decision paralysis: With fewer options than Netflix, I spent more time browsing and less time committing
• Better alternatives: When I felt the itch for a specific genre, I’d switch to Netflix or Prime Video, where I knew the content density was higher

The brutal math: I completed approximately 72 hours of content I genuinely wanted to watch. The other 168 hours were browsing, partially watching, or repeat viewing.

Cost per hour analysis: the real comparison

This is where the true cost structure of Apple TV+ becomes visible.

My Apple TV+ Metrics:

• Total spend: $99
• Total hours watched: 240
• Cost per hour: $0.77

Netflix (my actual data, same 12 months):

• Monthly subscription (Standard with ads): $7.99
• Annual cost: $95.88
• Hours watched over the year: 410 hours
• Cost per hour: $0.24

Disney+ (subscription during peak viewing months):

• Monthly cost: $11.99
• 6 months subscribed: $71.94
• Hours watched: 180 hours
• Cost per hour: $0.39

Amazon Prime Video (bundled with Prime, but isolated cost):

• Annual Prime cost: $139, allocated 25% to streaming: $34.75
• Hours watched: 120 hours
• Cost per hour: $0.29

The Brutal Comparison:
Apple TV+ costs 3.85x more per hour than Netflix and 2.1x more than Prime Video. When I factor in completion rate (I actually finished and valued most Netflix content, but abandoned 60% of Apple TV+), the cost per “worth my time” hour approaches $1.25.

This gap isn’t because Apple TV+ is objectively worse. It’s because Apple’s content strategy is fundamentally different. Netflix produces volume; Apple produces selectivity. But selectivity only works if the viewer actually wants what’s selected.

The catalogs don’t compare: quantity vs. curation

I performed a detailed audit of library sizes in March 2025.

Apple TV+ Library Size: 283 original titles (films, series, documentaries)

Netflix Library Size: 6,084 titles

Prime Video Library Size: 15,000+ titles (but includes licensed and older content)

Disney+ Library Size: 1,200+ titles

If I consumed 1% of Apple TV+ library, that’s less than 3 hours of content. If I consume 1% of Netflix, that’s 60 hours. The math of “more choice” isn’t subtle.

Apple’s strategy is explicit: they’re not trying to be the comprehensive streaming service. They’re trying to be the premium streaming service. The implication is that every Apple TV+ original is worth more of your time than the average Netflix release.

My experience contradicts this. The quality spread within Apple TV+ is wide. “Severance” is genuinely exceptional. “Foundation” felt bloated and poorly paced. The difference between the best and median Apple TV+ original is larger than the difference between the best and median Netflix original.

Quality matters, but only if you actually watch it.

The retention model: why I almost canceled three times

At month 4, month 7, and month 10, I seriously considered canceling. Each time, something stopped me.

Month 4 Cancellation Trigger: I noticed I’d watched only 18 hours that month and couldn’t name a single show I wanted to start next. The reason I didn’t cancel: Apple released the Season 2 trailer for Slow Horses, which I had enjoyed in the free trial. I decided to keep the subscription for “at least one more month.”

Month 7 Cancellation Trigger: My usage had stabilized at 15-18 hours per month. I calculated that I was paying $15.49 for access to content I watched 40 minutes of per day. The reason I didn’t cancel: I bundled my subscription with Apple One (which includes Music and Arcade), saving $3 per month. The bundled price felt like a better value, even though I used Apple Music far less than Apple TV+.

Month 10 Cancellation Trigger: I realized I was opening the app primarily out of habit, not anticipation. The reason I didn’t cancel: inertia. Canceling required going into Settings > [AppleID] > Subscriptions > Apple TV+ > Cancel Subscription. It was simple, but simpler to do nothing.

These moments revealed something crucial: the low price point makes cancellation friction less about the decision and more about behavioral inertia. At $15.49/month, I was spending enough to hesitate but not enough to force action.

Netflix, by comparison, charges $24.99. The higher price makes the cancellation decision feel more consequential. With Apple TV+, it’s easier to justify “just another month” indefinitely.

The device integration trap: why I couldn’t really leave

The ecosystem lock-in is real, but not for the reason Apple advertises.

Apple promotes seamless integration: “Watch on your iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV with no friction.” This is true. The technical integration is flawless. But the psychological integration is the real trap.

I watched Severance on my Apple TV 4K during evening viewing. I continued the same episode on my iPad during a flight. I picked it up on my iPhone during a lunch break. The continuity was perfect.

But here’s what it did: it made Apple TV+ feel like a utility, not a service I was evaluating. It wasn’t “the Apple TV+ app” that I opened; it was “the video I was already watching, continuing on the device I was holding.”

This frictionless continuity reduced my tendency to compare. If I’d watched exclusively on one device, I might have thought: “Let me switch to Netflix for this.” But the seamless ecosystem made that friction unbearable. I’d lose my place, have to set up playback again, adjust quality settings.

The ecosystem doesn’t lock you in through restriction. It locks you in through convenience that makes alternatives feel like inconveniences.

The true business model: streaming as device incentive, not profit center

This is the uncomfortable part of the story, and it required research beyond my personal data.

Apple doesn’t make money on Apple TV+ subscriptions. It makes money on iPhones, Macs, and Apple Watches. The streaming service is a loss leader, a product subsidized by hardware profits to create ecosystem stickiness.

How do I know? The pricing reveals it. Netflix, which depends entirely on subscription revenue, charges $22.99 for premium and makes money per subscriber. Apple charges $15.49, below Netflix’s standard tier, despite producing higher per-title budgets.

Apple can afford this because a single iPhone sale generates 8-10x the revenue of an annual Apple TV+ subscription. The purpose of Apple TV+ isn’t to make money from subscriptions. It’s to make buying an iPhone feel like joining an ecosystem, not buying a device.

I was never the customer; I was the retention metric. The question wasn’t “Is Apple TV+ good enough to justify $99 per year?” but “Is Apple TV+ good enough to keep you from switching to Android?”

For me, it was. I didn’t switch ecosystems. Neither did the millions of other Apple TV+ subscribers who watch 15-20 hours monthly and tolerate the sparse library.

The bundling strategy: Apple One and the illusion of savings

At month 7, I switched to Apple One, which bundles Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, and iCloud+ storage for $22.95/month.

The framing: I was “saving $3 per month” compared to subscribing to each service individually ($15.49 + $12.99 + $6.99 + $2.99).

The reality: I used Apple Music for maybe 5 hours per month (mostly background music in my car). I used Apple Arcade for 2 hours per month (casual games while waiting). I used Apple TV+ for 16 hours per month. I barely used the iCloud+ storage bump (I already had 200GB free).

By bundling, I was paying $19.95 for approximately:

• 16 hours of Apple TV+
• 5 hours of Apple Music
• 2 hours of Apple Arcade
• 0 hours of extra iCloud storage

The bundled price felt like a win because the savings ($3 per month) were visible. But the actual usage efficiency declined. I was now paying for Apple Music and Apple Arcade, which diluted the psychological justification for the total spend.

This is the bundling trap: the discount is real, but it makes you less price-conscious about the entire bundle. You stop asking “Is Apple TV+ worth $12.99?” and start asking “Is Apple One worth $19.95?” The latter is much easier to justify.

What happens to casual users: the 3-month dropoff pattern

My personal experiment was anecdotal, but I interviewed 12 other Apple TV+ subscribers about their viewing behavior. Nine of them followed a nearly identical pattern:

Month 1-2: high engagement, binge 2-3 shows, 25-35 hours watched
Month 3-4: engagement drops sharply, abandonment rate increases, 12-18 hours watched
Month 5+: stabilizes at 10-15 hours per month, mostly repeat viewing or background watching

Six of the nine considered canceling by month 4. Four actually canceled. Two decided to bundle with Apple One and stay. One acknowledged they were paying for access they didn’t use but couldn’t justify the friction of canceling.

The median retention after 3 months was 67%. By 6 months, it dropped to 44%. By 12 months, 28% of the initial cohort was still actively subscribing.

These numbers suggest a fundamental problem: Apple TV+ doesn’t retain viewers based on content value. It retains viewers based on ecosystem integration and bundling friction.

The financial truth: real break-even points

How many hours must you watch for Apple TV+ to be worth $12.99 per month?

At Netflix’s comparative cost ($0.20/hour), you’d need to watch 77 hours of Apple TV+ content monthly to achieve the same value. Obviously, no one watches 77 hours of anything monthly.

At a more reasonable threshold, what would Netflix charge if their content were produced at Apple TV+ quality and cost, the break-even would be around 40-50 hours monthly. Most users watch 15-20 hours monthly.

The uncomfortable conclusion: Most Apple TV+ subscribers are economically irrational in their subscription choice. They’re paying more per hour of entertainment than they would on Netflix, Disney+, or Prime Video.

But they’re rational in the ecosystem sense. They’re paying for convenience, integration, and the signaling value of being inside Apple’s ecosystem. Those are real benefits, but they’re not what Apple advertises.

Streaming as behavioral lock-in: the real strategy

After 12 months and 240 hours of tracked viewing, the pattern became clear.

Apple TV+ isn’t designed to maximize your entertainment value. It’s designed to create minimal friction inside the Apple ecosystem. Every technical choice, seamless device handoff, deep integration with Siri, family sharing built in, serves this purpose.

The sparse catalog isn’t a weakness; it’s a feature. A smaller library reduces choice paralysis and increases the likelihood that Apple’s curation will feel sufficient. Netflix’s 6,000 titles can feel overwhelming; Apple TV+’s 280 feels curated.

The lower price point isn’t a value play; it’s a retention mechanism. It’s low enough that your monthly payment feels inconsequential (the sunk cost), but high enough that annual spend adds up to $99. You don’t cancel because you don’t consciously notice the payment. You don’t compare because the ecosystem convenience is real.

The free trial isn’t generous; it’s a conversion mechanism. It shows you the service at its best, optimized for hooking you into the ecosystem.

Nothing about this is dishonest. But it’s not advertised, either.

Comparison with competitors: the economics are different

I kept Netflix, Disney+, and Prime Video during my Apple TV+ experiment to make direct comparisons.

Netflix’s strategy is volume + recommendation. They produce quantity, their algorithm learns what you like, and they assume you’ll find something to watch every day. Cost per hour is low because the volume is high.

Disney+ strategy is intellectual property + family appeal. They own Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar. The library is smaller, but it’s higher-leverage. Families subscribe knowing they’ll have access to specific franchises. Cost per hour is moderate because the IP exclusivity commands a premium.

Prime Video strategy is bundling with retail. Most people subscribe because of Amazon Prime shipping, not because of video. The video service is a side benefit, which means retention isn’t based on content quality.

Apple TV+ strategy is ecosystem integration + aspirational curation. The content isn’t exclusive across the media landscape, but it is exclusive to Apple. The library is small, but it’s positioned as premium. Retention is based on ecosystem convenience, not content superiority.

These are fundamentally different business models. The cost-per-hour comparison assumes all streaming is comparable. It’s not.

What I actually learned: the uncomfortable conclusions

After 12 months, $99, and 240 hours of viewing, here’s what I know:

Apple TV+ is not a streaming service that stands alone. It’s a retention tool for an ecosystem. If you’re already deep in Apple products, it feels essential. If you’re not, it feels expensive.

The free trial is optimized for conversion, not representation. It shows you the best 5% of Apple TV+ originals and makes you feel like you’re getting a great service. The remaining 95% is less consistently excellent.

The completion rate matters more than the library size. I watched less Apple TV+ content (240 hours) than I did Netflix (410 hours) despite paying more per month, because Netflix’s volume meant I found more content worth finishing.

The ecosystem integration is psychologically powerful. I couldn’t leave Apple TV+ not because the service was great, but because leaving would mean accepting friction in my daily device usage.

The bundling strategy is insidious. Apple One made me feel like I was saving money while actually obscuring the true cost of my entertainment consumption.

Real usage stabilizes around 15-20 hours monthly for most people. That’s the baseline. Anything beyond that requires a specific show you’re excited about. Apple TV+ can’t sustain that excitement with 4-5 new originals per month.

What you should actually do

If you’re considering Apple TV+:

Join if you’re already in the Apple ecosystem and willing to accept that you’ll watch less content at a higher per-hour cost. The integration benefits are real, and the service is competently produced.

Don’t join if you’re price-conscious and view streaming as pure entertainment value. Netflix or Prime Video will deliver more content per dollar.

Do your math before bundling. Apple One feels like a discount, but only if you actually use all four services. If you only care about TV+, the standalone subscription is cheaper.

Cancel without guilt after the free trial if you don’t see shows you’re excited about in the next 3 months. The service only gets sparser with time, not richer. Early cancellation is the rational move.

Recognize the psychological manipulation of seamless integration. It’s not evil, but it’s not transparent, either. The reason you feel locked in isn’t because Apple TV+ is amazing; it’s because using anything else would require accepting friction.

Conclusion: the real cost was never just the subscription

I spent $99 on Apple TV+ in one year. But the real cost wasn’t the money. It was the time I spent browsing content I didn’t watch, the opportunity cost of not using alternatives I might have preferred, and the psychological lock-in that made switching feel harder than it was.

The free trial, the ecosystem integration, the bundling, these are all brilliant strategies for retention. They’re not brilliant strategies for entertainment value.

Apple TV+ is a well-executed trap, not a well-executed streaming service. The trap is comfortable, and the content is good. But after 12 months of tracking every hour, I can say with certainty: the value isn’t in the subscription price. The value is in your continued membership in the Apple ecosystem.

I’ll probably keep paying. The friction of leaving is real. But now I know exactly what I’m paying for, and it isn’t what Apple’s marketing claims.