So be principled then and don't consume corporate content. Otherwise you are just virtue signaling your faux outrage. You don't get to claim a moral high ground if you consume (pirate) that which disgusts you so.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney+ Account Sharing Crackdown Goes Global With Paid Sharing Plan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So be principled then and don't consume corporate content. Otherwise you are just virtue signaling your faux outrage. You don't get to claim a moral high ground if you consume (pirate) that which disgusts you so.
Stop stating obvious lies.
Subscription payments do indeed pay the grossly inflated CxO compensations, but to act like subscriptions don't also pay the rank and file is a flat out lie.
Last edited:
You’re comparing apples to oranges. It’s not the same as a cable subscription. Besides, when streaming grew in popularity, a lot of those cable and satellite companies came out with streaming options that allowed what you just described.
Yes, they can attempt to control access, but that doesn’t mean their customers have to accept it. People forget that all it takes is withholding enough money from them to make them rethink their choice. Complacency is what gives these companies the balls to do stuff like this.
Frankly, the argument feels like a distinction without a difference.
The whole point of original content is to get users to subscribe (or stay subscribed). If you are accessing it without paying (eg: torrents), then you are by definition depriving the company of revenue.
We can split hairs on how you wouldn’t be subscribing anyways, in which case, why even bother downloading a show to watch if your sentiment is that the streaming service’s content is too bad to be worth paying for?
Or even if nothing of physical worth was lost, when do people feel entitled to access something they otherwise don’t have permission to, without paying a cent?
I can’t stop people from pirating. It’s not my job and it’s not something which impacts me in any manner. My point simply is - if you want to do something, own it and just admit to it. Trying to dress it up with fancier terms doesn’t change the underlying implications of such an act, which is that said company (and the show’s actors) are not getting paid.
Maybe you are fine with that. Just say so.
If you're paying more than $20/m for unlimited talk, text and data on 5G, you're definitely paying for both of those services.
Happily! The now grandfathered plan provides a way to split costs of extra services across more people. Additionally, we have access to a plan discount that we can share with our family members through a qualifying member, with those who would not otherwise qualify for the discount. Sometimes we also front the monthly phone bill costs for family members whose income streams aren't as dependable as ours, and they pay us back later. Thanks for asking.
People from the past would be shocked at calling all this content expensive. That being said, does high-volume, low-margin pricing not work?
I'm getting Disney Plus and Hulu with my older mobile plan on Verizon. I got Disney Plus with Hulu for $3 a month for the first 3 years when it first came out with Disney. When I changed my Verizon plan, Disney paused my subscription with them, and if and when Verizon cancels my Disney plus plan, I will still get 2 more years at $3 a month since thats how many years i still have left through Disney themselves.
Their household verification system is glitchy as hell anyway. If I watch something on my bedroom Apple TV it’s fine. Then when I go to watch something in the family room it tells me I seem to be in a different location and asks me to “update household location.” After doing that several times it cut me off and said I’m out of household updates. I am about to cut *them* off.
You probably have one house (I agree, that’s normal). Many people have two or more scattered across Europe. Not normal but it happens, either because they originate from different countries, or they commute for work to a different country, etc; and I don’t want to have different logins/usernames for different locations).
I suppose you feel like you’re smart for uncovering this ‘scam’?
I think the more honest discovery is when you realise “the world of FREE!” is unsustainable – the content that you freeload is only there because there are people paying, and if no one pays, the content will start to reduce and eventually stop…
When later in programming you realise you need to add a few lines of code, you can insert them as 11, 12, 13, ... and you don't have to adjust all following line numbers.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Not paying for anything now AND multinational corporations not producing any more slop in the future.
What content do you consider 'slop', and what programming do you value?
I'm curious because, without more detail, it's difficult to appreciate your point of view.
That reminds me, I got their please come back trial offer again in August, with an offer deadline in December. I might take them up on it again for the Hulu(ads)+D(no ads) bundle. I never caught up with the Rez Dogs last time, but rewatching Over the Garden Wall and parts of Gravity Falls, etc., could be worth it for me. Alternatively, maybe I should finally give in and buy a Blu-Ray drive before those go off the market (soon; Sony is getting related manufacturing staff to retire) and it becomes harder to get licensed fully offline and unrevokable copies of stuff.
Based on the amount that Disney spends on original content, it seems they both need high volume and high pricing to break even. A single 8-episode season of Star Wars acolyte apparently cost them over $200 million. The issue seems to be that Star Wars and marvel shows by their very nature cost more because of the props, special effects and actors required.
Seriously? In Europe? So student kids with no income that happen to study in a different country (which may be a 30 min train ride away) have to get a separate subscription?
While they used to be cheaper (too cheap perhaps), I wouldn't call them "crazy expensive" now. When the Disney Channel launched in the 1980s with far less content (it wasn't even a 24 hour channel in its early years) than Disney+ has and no on demand, it was around $11/month which is around $35/month in today's dollars. Even with the recent price increases, Disney+ is still only $9.99/month with ads or $15.99/month ad-free starting in October. It's also easier to subscribe and unsubscribe.
Why is that hilarious? Content has long had paid subscriptions with ads including television, newspapers, and magazines. Many subscribers seem to prefer cheaper, ad-supported plan options. At least for now, the amount of ads is a lot less than traditional television.
It’s the same in that in involves a family subscribing to a premium channel/service but their child not being able to get the same channel/service under the same family/household subscription when they went away to college.
Customers don't have to accept it unless they want to continue to subscribe to the service. Based on the increased subscription numbers, it looks like many customers are very willing to accept it.
Yes, true. Though if you only have one college student I think it should be fine.
If you have several remote household members, they won't be able to access at the same time. (Not sure if its by month, or what.) If you don't want to pay more then they'll have to do without; or divide the year up between them; or find friends with subscriptions; or share a subscription with roommates.
I am not trying to discount people's feelings. I have two family members this change might effect, so I'm not completely happy either. It just drives me nuts when people go ballistic about details that are not true. Get mad about real stuff.
(And I'm happy Disney didn't go with Netflix's implementation.)