Disney+ and Hulu Ad-Free Pricing Going Up in October, Password Sharing Crackdown Coming

[El Szomorito]

I'm not worried about being nice, I'm worried about being accurate. Taking something you haven't paid for, is stealing.

Lol, the irony of it. Open up a damn legal book and stop spewing out bullsh*t. The least thing you were in your two-day rampage is being accurate.

 

[El Szomorito]

Yes but unfortunately the real underlying problem is that it's still too cheap, the studios are not making enough money to sustain these services, and thats before the current strikes. Now you have writers and actors wanting residuals, and the residuals simply don't exist because these streaming services don't have ads, so the whole system doesn't work unless they each raised their prices to like $70-$100 a service, or got rid of the no ad options. Which either of those would piss off consumers way too much, and rightfully so, causing everyone to cancel. And unfortunately many people here just think that pirating is the solution, but the truth is that will make everything worse. Enough money is already not being generated, which means actors and writers (and now possibly VFX houses if they all unionize) will not get paid what they want and the whole thing will collapse.

But where the hell does all this money go? They are paying out abhorrent sums for 8-10 episode seasons with one or two mid level actors and terrible writing. Certainly not there. CGI? Marketing? Accounting tricks to write off acquisition costs and avoid taxes?

10 years ago they did 20+ episode seasons for the fraction of the cost, and honestly only a tiny fraction of today's mega-shows have better quality and entertainment value than those.

To put it simply, there's way too much content being made and not enough money being spent for it, the golden days of streaming will come to an end unfortunately. Everyone wants all this content but no one is willing to pay for it, so it doesn't work unfortunately and that really sucks.

What I want is a single service where I can everything a couple years back. The pull of new shows is overrated. When I canceled Netflix years ago it was because they've pulled old series on my watchlist. I expected a growing catalog, not a shrinking one. Put them behind another paywall, and let's see if there is really that much demand for these overpriced shows.

 

[Karma*Police]

Ridiculous! Already cancelled Netflix and Spotify due to price hikes. Nothing justifies these increases but corporate greed! It’s not like any of that money goes to the workers or actors anyway.

Really? Last time I checked, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Anne Hathaway, Mark Ruffalo and their super-privileged, self-aggrandizing, hypocritical, completely uninformed yet holier than thou friends seemed to be doing pretty darn well. Not to mention, AI can probably write better scripts than the crap I’ve seen on Disney+ shows… and Disney movies.

 

[lcseds]

I pay $39 for 300/300 (FIOS), $9 for Paramount plus and I have Amazon Prime (I don't count that as I have always had it). We also have IPTV for $10 a month, Pluto (free), IMDB (Free), Crackle (Free), TeaTV (free), HGTVgo (free) and so many more---Total $58 per month and more choices than I had with basic cable @ $250 per month.

I can see defending streaming and cursing at the evil cable companies. But $250 for basic cable? Absurd and not believable. 150 channel package on my cable system is $60. I'm in the US. Nobody charges $250 for basic cable.

 

[The Phazer]

"Joke Tweets" are legal statements, regardless of the TOS.

And the legal statement doesn't even mention Netflix, so legally it doesn't override the TOS.

 

[Cunir]

I pay for Disney+ but I'd be more likely to keep it with the ESPN bundle. It's not even available in the UK yet. You'd think with all the Premier League on it they'd want to sell it over here - or maybe that's why they can't

 

[Zest28]

All these studios should put everything on Netflix like the good old days.

What if all record labels start their own streaming service and remove all their music from Apple Music and Spotify? That is what is happening with TV shows and movies.

It really sucks and it will kill this market.

 

[Zest28]

Netflix gains more new subscribers than expected following password-sharing crackdown

Streaming giant added 5.9 million new subscribers in last three months after clamping down on users sharing accounts

amp.theguardian.com

Netflix’s subscribers surge after password-sharing crackdown

Streaming giant says it added nearly 6 million customers after restricting the sharing of accounts between households.

www.aljazeera.com

Netflix’s password sharing crackdown pays off

The streaming services’ strategy to shore up its business appears to be working. It added almost 6 million subscribers in the three months to the end of June.

www.afr.com

Good to see that Disney failed with removing all Disney content from Netflix and decided to launch their own streaming service for pure greed.

Disney is basically opening their own “cinema“ and only Disney movies can be seen in their own “Disney cinema‘s“. I‘m sure that is illegal, so why is it not the same with streaming services?

 

[tekboi]

I don't expect them to care about me. That's nothing something I pay them for, and I don't have any delusions that they would care about me in any way. I'm dollar signs to them. And they're content to me. That's the arrangement.

Beyond that, taking something without paying for it is stealing. So a point of technicality, but the person sharing the account isn't stealing so much as they're holding the door open for someone else so they can steal.

What kind of dumb logic is that?

So if I buy 4 apples and share one with my friend, did my friend “steal“ an apple? Should my friend go into the store and buy an apple himself? The logic doesn’t check out.

Again, password sharing is something Netflix knew about for a decade and encouraged on twitter. it was on NF to set the precedemce early on. But instead they encouraged it, then backtracked later on. It was a good move on their part right? They could ONLY gain from this as existing account holders would likely not cancel and the people without accounts would either have to buy or go without.

Me personally, I never intended on spending 20+ per month for a service that has very few new shows I’m interested in. And if people do, they are just feeding into a problem of corporate GREED. Yes, GREED. Companies do exist to me money, but there comes a point where it becomes anti-consumer and normalizes anti-consumer practices across the board.

 

[visualseed]

I'm not here to "defend" Iger's compensation but let's be realistic. Even if Disney took Iger's entire annual salary, bonus and stock incentives, and distributed it evenly to all Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ subscribers (subscriptions), each one would only get around 12 cents total or around 1 cent per month.

The thing that nobody talks about is how much of ESPN’s revenue goes towards the salaries / compensation of pro athletes. Leagues have increased broadcast license fees to subsidize (or outright cover) player compensation packages and that directly translates to subscribers paying more. If Disney could dump that money pit, they would have a lot of breathing room and freedom to innovate in other places.

 

[cgs1xx]

Oh wow 😕
I don’t have disney+ but the Hulu increase is quite steep!
I think monthly subscriptions across the board have gone crazy…

 

[hvfsl]

I stopped watching Disney+ after mandalorian season 2. Looking at the reviews of all their recent movies/shows, it is pretty clear all talented people have even been forced out or have left for greener pastures.
I personally don’t see Disney being around by the end of the decade, most of their IPs/assets will probably be bought up by other companies over the next few years until the point where the company that was no longer exists.

 

[ninethirty]

Lol, the irony of it. Open up a damn legal book and stop spewing out bullsh*t. The least thing you were in your two-day rampage is being accurate.

I think the terms "stealing" and "theft" are both appropriate here.

"Rampage" hah!

 

[ninethirty]

What kind of dumb logic is that?

So if I buy 4 apples and share one with my friend, did my friend “steal“ an apple? Should my friend go into the store and buy an apple himself? The logic doesn’t check out.

Again, password sharing is something Netflix knew about for a decade and encouraged on twitter. it was on NF to set the precedemce early on. But instead they encouraged it, then backtracked later on. It was a good move on their part right? They could ONLY gain from this as existing account holders would likely not cancel and the people without accounts would either have to buy or go without.

Me personally, I never intended on spending 20+ per month for a service that has very few new shows I’m interested in. And if people do, they are just feeding into a problem of corporate GREED. Yes, GREED. Companies do exist to me money, but there comes a point where it becomes anti-consumer and normalizes anti-consumer practices across the board.

There's a pretty big difference between what I said and the example you gave. When the Apple is sold to you, the original owner has no ownership or rights related to the Apple anymore. You can do whatever you want with it, but the agreement with Netflix isn't to buy 1 Netflix subscription and then share that with as many people as you like. Netflix did not license any of the other people you're sharing passwords with to access/enjoy their content.

It doesn't matter what Netflix has done in the past, it matters what they're doing now. They're saying no. The only appropriate response if you're not ok with this is to stop. your subscription in protest of what they're doing. This does not excuse anyone to just start taking the content for free.

The corporate greed thing is getting really old. It's like people just discovered this past year that companies exist to make money, and that their shareholders expect them to grow. If a businesses practices become anti-consumer, the consumers will stop paying. Do you think Netflix is about to go out of business soon?

 

[sracer]

I'll stick to FreeVee and Pluto Tv

👍
Ever since cutting the cable cord over 15 years ago, I've been a fan of FAST (Free Ad-Supported TV) options. Pluto TV, TubiTV, FreeVee, and a few other niche channels, offer a wide variety of content.

Added to that, an OTA antenna for broadcast TV (and I live 100 miles from Phoenix but can still pull in 30 channels with a simple $20 placemat antenna), and my own Plex server that houses format-shifted copies of my DVD and BluRay collection, I have more than enough content for 10 lifetimes. 😂

These for-pay streaming services will continue to push to increase revenue. After this wave of crackdowns on password-sharing has made its way across services, I expect them to implement high month-to-month fees to push people to annual subscriptions (that will be significantly less than the cost of 12 individual month-to-month charges). That will lock customers in. I don't think that's a good idea for customers, but it makes sense.

 

[Razorpit]

I was an early adopter of Disney+ with their 3 year plan offering. After that, I got off the ride. Too much for my liking.

Same here. Has it been 3 years already? I need to get off that train as well. Couldn't tell you the last time our family even opened that app.

 

[webkit]

I can see defending streaming and cursing at the evil cable companies. But $250 for basic cable? Absurd and not believable. 150 channel package on my cable system is $60. I'm in the US. Nobody charges $250 for basic cable.

I agree. $250 seems way too high for just basic cable. Even if it included upgraded entertainment and sports packages/channels it would be high. I wonder if that $250 also included phone and internet as cable companies often offer all three together as a package.

 

[shpankey]

You'll notice that twice he mentioned companies that don't care about you. So bringing that up isn't a straw man, it's directly related to the discussion.

Yeah but where does the below happen?

"The person you replied to never said that they need companies to care about them."

He does not ever make that claim. You have distorted his comment into a stance he doesn't have. Ie: classic straw man argument.

 

[ninethirty]

Yeah but where does the below happen?

"The person you replied to never said that they need companies to care about them."

He does not ever make that claim. You have distorted his comment into a stance he doesn't have. Ie: classic straw man argument.

If a person is specifically going on about companies that don't care about people being a problem, it's not exactly a stretch to interpret that that's important to him. No he didn't use the words "I need companies to care about me," but he clearly does.

There was no straw man.

 

[mikelets456]

That’s a pretty **** take dude.

If they didn’t want people sharing passwords, maybe they shouldn’t have LITERALLY ENCOURAGED it beforehand. At the very least, they could have limited the accounts to 2 or 3 IP addresses or something reasonable instead of snatching it from everyone.

It’s just corporate greed, and it has nothing to do with Actors & Writers getting paid more. “Inflation” is just a scapegoat for them to justify it. And it will continue to get worse, and these companies will continue to overreach because people like you really don’t have a backbone to stand on anything and would rather shrug their shoulders, lie down and take whatever non-sense is thrown at you.

What's corporate greed? I despise corporations but let them self destruct---I have no need for over priced crap like Disney plus. You're free to NOT have their service. It would be "greed" if you have no other choice to PAY or lose everything.
$15 a month for a crappy service that I don't need doesn't change my life (there's plenty other options) but forcibly having to pay $10K a year in property taxes or lose my property that affects my life....End rant and I digress.

My point is, there's so many other options out there you won't miss their crappy overpriced stuff. I used to have Hulu live, but when it got over $60 a month, I researched other options. I'm now paying WAY less with FAR more options---so it was a good thing they raised their prices because now they're at $90 a month. Ranting does nothing, problem solving does...

 

[shpankey]

If a person is specifically going on about companies that don't care about people being a problem, it's not exactly a stretch to interpret that that's important to him. No he didn't use the words "I need companies to care about me," but he clearly does.

There was no straw man.

Again I respectfully disagree. I say this because I agree companies don't care about individual users and at the same time I don't believe they should care about little old me. That's impossible for any company to care about every user. Sure they care about overall user satisfaction as a whole but even then it's a balance of their own and their users.

I would say this. Before you give someone a stance they haven't specifically stated, instead of reaching and assuming this meaning, ask them if that's what they meant. You didn't and wouldn't in this case because, if you're honest, you know they never intended that (let's be honest) ridiculous meaning.

 

[compwiz1202]

Stealing involves depriving someone of something. If I'm paying for a Netflix account that allows for 3 simultaneous streams and I decide to let 2 other people (e.g. your kid who's away at college) use the 2 streams that I'm not using but paid for, that's not stealing. The account is not being used any more than what it allows for (3 simultaneous streams). Netflix isn't losing anything that hasn't been paid for.

There is zero difference between (A) 3 simultaneous streams taking play under one roof/address and (B) 3 simultaneous streams occurring under 3 different roofs/addresses except for where the streaming is taking place. 3 streams were paid for and no more than 3 streams are being used at any one time.

As for you thinking their "Love is sharing a password" tweet was a joke, it was not.

Your shared Netflix password is safe, the CEO says

Let's all breathe a sigh of relief: If you share a Netflix password, you're safe to keep using it for now, the CEO said on Monday.

www.cnbc.com

"Password sharing is something you have to learn to live with, because there’s so much legitimate password sharing, like you sharing with your spouse, with your kids .... so there’s no bright line, and we’re doing fine as is."

Netflix is cool with you sharing your account

Don't worry about lending your Netflix password. CEO Reed Hastings says sharing entertainment is a good thing.

www.cnet.com

"We love people sharing Netflix," CEO Reed Hastings said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show here in Las Vegas. "That's a positive thing, not a negative thing."

Especially since they force you into four streams just to get 4K. At least D+ doesn't do that

 

[compwiz1202]

What's corporate greed? I despise corporations but let them self destruct---I have no need for over priced crap like Disney plus. You're free to NOT have their service. It would be "greed" if you have no other choice to PAY or lose everything.
$15 a month for a crappy service that I don't need doesn't change my life (there's plenty other options) but forcibly having to pay $10K a year in property taxes or lose my property that affects my life....End rant.

Definitely agree. You don't NEED streaming or fancy tech device. You NEED to eat. Groceries are where people to do something about the gouging

 

[compwiz1202]

What kind of dumb logic is that?

So if I buy 4 apples and share one with my friend, did my friend “steal“ an apple? Should my friend go into the store and buy an apple himself? The logic doesn’t check out.

Again, password sharing is something Netflix knew about for a decade and encouraged on twitter. it was on NF to set the precedemce early on. But instead they encouraged it, then backtracked later on. It was a good move on their part right? They could ONLY gain from this as existing account holders would likely not cancel and the people without accounts would either have to buy or go without.

Me personally, I never intended on spending 20+ per month for a service that has very few new shows I’m interested in. And if people do, they are just feeding into a problem of corporate GREED. Yes, GREED. Companies do exist to me money, but there comes a point where it becomes anti-consumer and normalizes anti-consumer practices across the board.

Finally an argument against the overparroted They're a corp they need to make money.

 

[ninethirty]

Again I respectfully disagree. I say this because I agree companies don't care about individual users and at the same time I don't believe they should care about little old me. That's impossible for any company to care about every user. Sure they care about overall user satisfaction as a whole but even then it's a balance of their own and their users.

I would say this. Before you give someone a stance they haven't specifically stated, instead of reaching and assuming this meaning, ask them if that's what they meant. You didn't and wouldn't in this case because, if you're honest, you know they never intended that (let's be honest) ridiculous meaning.

And I also have to respectfully disagree. There is no logical reason to bring up (repeatedly) that these companies don't care about people, and then claim that that's not something that's important to you. I don't think it's necessary to ask every person I ever talk with to clarify their intent, because that's the purpose of conversation and debate. A person says things that give me an idea about their position that I can respond to. I didn't ask because there was no confusion on my part.