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

[Razorpit]

If you cannot afford $13.99 a month for a streaming service - perhaps you need to rethink your life and get a job that pays better.

You hate Netflix because they are going after THIEVES stealing their service?

Remind me, what is your address - I’m going to come and break in to your place and help myself to whatever you own and give you NOTHING for it!

The problem today is you need $13.99 x 5 or 6 to see everything you want to see.

Great. Now pay your writers and actors with it? Probably not!

You think they work for free?

On second thought, with the quality of writing over the last 7-8 years, and the stoned faced actors we've seen, it seems as if they hired third or fourth graders. I guess you're right. We should pay child writers and actors.

Not true — energy costs have increased, production costs have increased, salaries have increased — streaming is not immune to inflation.

There's no inflation. People remind me of that daily.

They could cut their pay by 25% and that still won't change things.

The losses are due to the high programming costs (acquiring and creating original programming). Even Apple had to raise prices recently.

Take the movie Killers of the Flower Moon as an example. It was originally going to be produced by Paramount, but when they realized how much it would be, they decided to bail on it until Apple stepped in and paid $200 million for it. All because of well known names ( Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio).

If a streaming service doesn't bid up to acquire content, someone else will. That's part of what drives content costs higher.

The losses are due to terrible writing, terrible production, and terrible acting. True production has become more expensive, production and advertising costs is insane. As a result studios choose "safe" scripts they think we all want to see, a mix between rehashes of old stories and exercising personal vendetta's against established characters and story lines that they think we are all in agreement with.

The thing is we aren't all on the same page and the studios can't figure this out. Box office bomb after box office bomb tells them nothing. And in cases like Disney, it only encourages them more, see the upcoming Snow White. People are tuning out on the new garbage.

While streaming services are suffering, our family is probably spending more than ever, purchasing classic movies and shows on iTunes during various sales. I just spent $10 total and got The Black Stallion and Second Hand Lions, both movies my daughter loves. At $5 a pop it's much easier to just buy and watch at our leisure, instead of going to the library to borrow, or the much cheaper illegal options out there.

These streaming services aren't cheap when you add them up. Our family isn't hurting for cash, but figure in an annual expense of ~ $12k-$15k on hockey, and an additional $2-$3k on other hobbies, our entertainment budget is smaller than it ever was. Not to mention the bang for the buck is atrocious.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Password Sharing Crackdown: For some reason, I feel like this is Netflix's fault and I hate them for that.

Pretty sure if the shoe was on the other foot, you too would hate people sharing their passwords and you losing out on millions. Saying anything other than that is a lie.

 

[MysticCow]

AI can probably write better scripts than the crap I’ve seen on Disney+ shows… and Disney movies.

South Park 26x04 “Deep Learning” says hello.

I wonder if that $250 also included phone and internet as cable companies often offer all three together as a package.

Mine did when I had cable. It was around $250 for cable/internet/landline. When we took our cable out, it lowered the bill to $75. So if we do a line of math, we get $175 for a TiVo cable package.

Curious Post Script on this point: it’s now over $300 for all sans discounts so…$225.

The thing is we aren't all on the same page and the studios can't figure this out. Box office bomb after box office bomb tells them nothing. And in cases like Disney, it only encourages them more, see the upcoming Snow White. People are tuning out on the new garbage.

So you’re saying we want to have good stories rather than platitudes? Good acting rather than “I’m (REDACTED), come worship me?” (fill in your own REDACTED there)

Perfect example—CNN literally (within the last hour) had stupid celebrity tricks and they were all saying “PATRIARCHY has failed, blah blah blah.” CLICK on the remote and now I’m watching BBC News. I’m simply tired of buzzwords like patriarchy, woke, “free speech,” and a ton more other buzzwords used on CNN, Fox (ugh and no longer allowed in this house), and MSNBC (ugh and no longer allowed in this house). Sorry, but I want News and not buzzwords.

If CNN keeps going down the buzzword road, then it will also be banned. I can read and can go cnn.com or just watch BBC.

 

[npmacuser5]

Streaming designed as an on/off managed service. Set a monthly budget, add and subtract streaming services based on the budget. Could get a months viewing of 12 different services a year for less than 20 bucks a month. A very good deal.

 

[sjsharksfan12]

The problem today is you need $13.99 x 5 or 6 to see everything you want to see.

This is what I hate when people say if you can't afford "X" a month...

It's not that I can afford X a month. It's basically X * 5 or 6 and it starts adding up.

 

[Karma*Police]

South Park 26x04 “Deep Learning” says hello.



Mine did when I had cable. It was around $250 for cable/internet/landline. When we took our cable out, it lowered the bill to $75. So if we do a line of math, we get $175 for a TiVo cable package.

Curious Post Script on this point: it’s now over $300 for all sans discounts so…$225.


So you’re saying we want to have good stories rather than platitudes? Good acting rather than “I’m (REDACTED), come worship me?” (fill in your own REDACTED there)

Perfect example—CNN literally (within the last hour) had stupid celebrity tricks and they were all saying “PATRIARCHY has failed, blah blah blah.” CLICK on the remote and now I’m watching BBC News. I’m simply tired of buzzwords like patriarchy, woke, “free speech,” and a ton more other buzzwords used on CNN, Fox (ugh and no loner in this house), and MSNBC (ugh and no longer allowed in this house). Sorry, but I want News and not buzzwords.

If CNN keeps going down the buzzword road, then it will also be banned. I can read and can go cnn.com or just watch BBC.

That’s why I get my news from independent journalists. Very few self-respecting journalists work for mainstream media anymore. MSDNC, Fox News, CNN, NY Times, and Disney properties like ABC and ESPN, are all garbage, peddling nonsense propaganda. The real journalists who are out to expose truth have moved on to substack and/or have their own podcasts.

 

[mikelets456]

That’s why I get my news from independent journalists. Very few self-respecting journalists work for mainstream media anymore. MSDNC, Fox News, CNN, NY Times, and Disney properties like ABC and ESPN, are all garbage, peddling nonsense propaganda. The real journalists who are out to expose truth have moved on to substack and/or have their own podcasts.

Absolutely---once news becomes partisan it's no longer news. I do the same as you---

 

[webkit]

Mine did when I had cable. It was around $250 for cable/internet/landline.

That's the only way the $250 figure would potentially make any sense, and even that would be high if the TV portion is truly just "basic cable."

Basic cable alone (no phone or internet) is typically going to start at around $50 to $60 per month and while it can easily climb from there with upgraded/premium plans and channels, $250 would be unusually high even with taxes and fees, multiple television boxes, etc.

 

[1284814]

don’t get upset at people for shilling for COrpos anymore. They either have sticks in Netflix , or they just enjoy the taste of leather.

if I pay for 6 screens and only use 2 , It’s obvious I could share the other 4. And calling this stealing is not a proof of character but how wasteful you are. imagine paying for your home and you bring your extended family on hard time in and then the bank give you a call.
I swear you would here the same statement being made by those people.
I just ignore them do my dirt and disappear, because well What does getting mad bring me?

 

[1284814]

Built your own library with movie anywhere, and well you know what to do for the exculsieve.
skip them hehe

 

[tomtad]

I can see a future where everyone signs up for only 1 service per month, then switches to the next. Holding onto multiple services throughout the year makes less and less sense. 🤮

I personally think they’ll all end up free but with loads of ads, and you can pay to have them ad free.

Paid only streaming services worked when there were only one or two players and people didn’t mind paying, but when content is spread across loads of different services paying for several services becomes hard to justify.

At the end of the day everyone what’s the largest audience and you get that by being free.

 

[Abazigal]

In light of this, I think it's interesting to revisit a lot of the comments suggesting that Apple needed to acquire Netflix, and how poorly they have ended up aging.

While Apple would eventually create their own video streaming service, it's worth taking note that Apple does a lot of things differently, and TV+ is another good example of Apple has allowed their unique attributes to speak for themselves and how it is able to set themselves apart from the competition.

First off, I think we really need to acknowledge that video streaming as a business model is simply not sustainable for most companies. Netflix only recently just broke even, and I feel it's too early to say if this can be maintained in the long run. I still cannot help but chuckle every time I hear someone claim that Apple ought to acquire Netflix, and I think it's funny that analysts are now trying to make the case for Apple acquiring Disney+ as well (how do these people even have a job?).

In this context, I admire Apple's foresight in recognising this fact early on, and their discipline in focusing on a small library compromising of quality content that is generally better than what you will find on Netflix. They have resisted the urge to license expensive IP or acquire a costly back catalogue (looks at Amazon's acquisition of MGM), and in the process, kept costs low and prices manageable.

Should Apple have simply not entered this space altogether? Perhaps. I suspect TV+ likely isn't profitable yet (and it may well never be), though it does add value to the Apple ecosystem, but I concede this is hard to quantify. More crucially, it is one way Apple can ensure there will be content available for the Vision Pro when it releases. If no studio is willing to invest in making spatial video for Apple users, for instance, Apple can always bankroll it themselves. Perhaps Apple's biggest advantage here is that TV+, like their other services, are a feature, not a product, so Apple can afford to keep subsidising them indefinitely if they believe it grants them a competitive advantage.

I maintain that critics of Apple would do well to bear one adage in mind - The best way of covering Apple is to begin with Apple. You have to focus with Apple, and then you move outwards. You start with Apple, and then you analyse the industry that Apple operates in. Instead, what I see a lot of people still do today is that they just treat Apple as any other company. But Apple does a lot of things differently, and if all you are doing is simply comparing Apple to everyone else and then go “Hey, Apple isn’t following what everyone else is doing, so I don’t think whatever Apple is doing is going to work”, I think they go down the wrong path.

Next up - folding phones. 😂

 

[Michael Scrip]

Another thing to consider is that TV used to be funded solely by advertising. TV stations would buy shows and sell ads against them. The more people watched... the more the station could charge for advertising. And the advertisers went along with that because that would mean more eyeballs watching those ads.

One of the most expensive shows on TV was Friends at $10 million an episode... with $6 million of that just going toward the actors' salaries. Sounds expensive... sure... but the ads were paying for it. This relationship was obviously beneficial to all parties involved... production companies, TV stations, advertisers, etc.

When a TV station buys a new show for the fall... they pay the production company... and then the TV station's ad sales team finds ads to sell against it. That's how it worked for the last 80 years.

But with streaming... the funding come from individual paying subscribers. (though many streaming services are experimenting with ads lately... more on that later)

Sure Netflix makes a lot of revenue... but every new show they make come out of the big piggybank of money they got from subscribers. And their expenses are huge. It's a much different business than relying on advertising for funding.

People hate ads... but the streaming services don't make enough money from subscriptions alone. That's why they've started adding ads.

I wonder where we'll end up?

 

[Abazigal]

People hate ads... but the streaming services don't make enough money from subscriptions alone. That's why they've started adding ads.

I wonder where we'll end up?

My pessimistic guess is - cable-level pricing, with ads on maybe all but the most pricey tier.

 

[Villarrealadrian]

Or not, risks people take to save the cost of a couple of McMeals.

Sorry I don’t eat mcDonals I wouldn’t know

 

[Wanted797]

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?

Why would it be illegal for Disney to open their own cinema for only their movies?

 

[Zest28]

Why would it be illegal for Disney to open their own cinema for only their movies?

It's against regulations.

It's literally an anti-trust issue, by abusing your market position to block out competing cinema's showing certain movies.

Disney has been buying up many studios left and right, so I'm sure someone could raise an anti-trust issue against Disney+ too, just like what we have seen with cinema's.

This "vertical integration" done by Disney and other studios with their streaming platforms can lead to illegal monopolization.

 

[Abazigal]

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?

I am not sure what you think the issue is. It sounds like you feel anyone should be able to have their content hosted on Disney+ and Disney wouldn't be able to say no?

I mean, isn't that literally called Youtube?

 

[Zest28]

I am not sure what you think the issue is. It sounds like you feel anyone should be able to have their content hosted on Disney+ and Disney wouldn't be able to say no?

I mean, isn't that literally called Youtube?

So we can drop Disney+, NetFlix, HBO, Hulu, and so on .... because according to you, everything is on YouTube?

There is not an issue just according to me, because it looks like Disney is not even making a profit.

Disney their stunt of removing all their content from Netflix and starting their own streaming service has backfired.

Imagine that instead of just having Apple Music or Spotify, you need to have a subscription for;
- $15 subscription for Unversal Music Group
- $15 subscription for Atlantic Records
- $15 subscription for Def Jam Recordings
- $15 subscritpion for Warner Music Group
- $15 subscription for Columbia Records
....

And you see no issue with this if they would do this same type of crap with music?

 

[Abazigal]

So we can drop Disney+, NetFlix, HBO, Hulu, and so on .... because according to you, everything is on YouTube?

There is not an issue just according to me, because it looks like Disney is not even making a profit.

Disney their stunt of removing all their content from Netflix and starting their own streaming service has backfired.

It seems like we are talking about two separate matters.

Disney, as with many streaming platforms, is not profitable because the economics of the business appear to be way off. Creating content is costly, what more when Disney is playing around with huge brand names that involve high production costs. You also lose whatever revenue you would have earned from licensing your content to Netflix, on top of the costs of maintaining your own streaming service. It doesn't help that most studios are not tech companies, and it shows with how crappy their apps are.

You and I are in total agreement in this regard. Studios should have simply continued to stick to their core competency while making their content available on Netflix.

The deluge of streaming services also seem to have created some sort of subscription fatigue. Most people are getting tired of paying for multiple subscriptions.

You, on the other hand, seem to have some issue with Disney reserving their streaming platform only for their own content, though I personally don't see how it constitutes an antitrust problem. I guess that's my query to you.

 

[Zest28]

It seems like we are talking about two separate matters.

Disney, as with many streaming platforms, is not profitable because the economics of the business appear to be way off. Creating content is costly, what more when Disney is playing around with huge brand names that involve high production costs. You also lose whatever revenue you would have earned from licensing your content to Netflix, on top of the costs of maintaining your own streaming service. It doesn't help that most studios are not tech companies, and it shows with how crappy their apps are.

You and I are in total agreement in this regard. Studios should have simply continued to stick to their core competency while making their content available on Netflix.

The deluge of streaming services also seem to have created some sort of subscription fatigue. Most people are getting tired of paying for multiple subscriptions.

You, on the other hand, seem to have some issue with Disney reserving their streaming platform only for their own content, though I personally don't see how it constitutes an antitrust problem. I guess that's my query to you.

The economics of the business is not way off, Netflix is profitable in the end. In fact, Netflix is one of the highest paid tech company in the world where software engineers can earn more than $1 million/yr (not even Google or Apple pays this type of money).

Also don't forget that Netflix is now the largest movie studio in Hollywood atleast in terms to volume.

The reason why other streaming services are losing money, it's because they suck. I had Disney+ in the past and it is so bad, it's not even funny. And I was paying only $4.99 per month back then. I can't imagine anyone paying the current prices for Disney+.

If Disney wants to make money from streaming, they should return to Netflix, just like how they used to in the past.

 

[MysticCow]

People hate ads... but the streaming services don't make enough money from subscriptions alone. That's why they've started adding ads.

I wonder where we'll end up?

People want it for nothing and can’t understand that the company’s bills need paid somehow.

Pluto, Tubi, FreeVee, etc CANNOT FUNCTION AT ALL without ads. They would have folded within minutes or start charging users and you cannot tell me otherwise.

Pay tier, meaning Hulu, Prime, etc should have drastically reduced ad space if they truly want an ad-supported tier. You’ll also notice that Mouse+ and Hulu’s pricing doesn’t include an increase for the ad tier. It kind of looks like the ad tier pays for itself on a per user basis. If it didn’t, the price would rise. So it’s safe-ish-erino to think they are at least breaking even with the ad tier per user.

By doing a line of math means that ads are with at least $6/month per person (14-8) for Mouse+ and $8/month per user for Hulu (18-10).

It's against regulations.

It's literally an anti-trust issue, by abusing your market position to block out competing cinema's showing certain movies.

Except it isn’t illegal. It only becomes illegal when you utilize monopoly power to screw the competition.

A long time ago, Marvel Comics bought Heroes World, which sent comics to comic shops (pre-Disney/Marvel). They went full in-house buying them up. This led to Diamond Comics getting literally everyone else via exclusivity agreements! Capital Comics Distributors (I loved that company!) went under a while after and was bought by…Diamond.

Everyone screamed anti-trust, but the courts said Diamond does not have monopoly power over the entire entertainment industry and thus wasn’t broken up. (Side note: Marvel eventually gave up and went to Diamond also)

Same deal here. Exclusivity =/= anti-trust UNTIL you have monopoly power AND use that power the screw the competition. You have to prove they are using their power to screw Discovery/Time Warner, Paramount/CBS, Universal/NBC, Netflix, AppleTV+, etc, and you simply can’t prove it. Sorry. You can’t.

If you can prove it, you need to go and file your lawsuit RIGHT FRIGGIN NOW and argue it in front of a judge, not argue with me on MacRumors. Don’t argue on the internet (it’s like running in the…). Go file now because you’ve got all the information needed to take the Mouse down. I’ll even be at the court, cheering you on (never liked Disney).

The deluge of streaming services also seem to have created some sort of subscription fatigue. Most people are getting tired of paying for multiple subscriptions.

I am agreeing but we could be wrong. I’m tired of subscription on top of subscription. Here we are down to just a few (Netflix, Hulu, our UKTV, and Max). Everything else is a free one (Pluto, FreeVee, etc).

The cat is out of the bag when it comes to streaming content. We KNOW we can run with ad-supported free. We KNOW we can subscribe and then stop when our show is done (my personal example is Paramount+). If you’re going to make us pay for content month after month, you better give us more content we want to view than we can shake a stick at.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Pluto, Tubi, FreeVee, etc CANNOT FUNCTION AT ALL without ads. They would have folded within minutes or start charging users and you cannot tell me otherwise.

Yes... I know ad-supported services like Pluto and Tubi rely on ads. 🤣

I was talking about the subscription-based streaming services that seem to be struggling because they don't make enough money solely from subscriptions.

My point was... all TV in the old days was ad-supported. Then we got streaming and people liked not having ads.

BUT... streaming services are starting to realize that they might need ads if they want to stay in business.

So I was just wondering what the future holds for these paid streaming services. Will they be forced to have ads?

And will that push people away? We already hear "I'm paying for this service... why does it have ads?"

It's quite a pickle.

😋

 

[rillrill]

On another note. Could anyone see these streaming services going away completely? Like all these companies and networks joining up to make a new type of cable/streaming hybrid? Costing the consumers more, of course. I think remember some pundits saying streaming isn’t or can’t be profitable or sustainable at the current prices. I do also see the return of piracy in large numbers though.

 

[Wanted797]

It's against regulations.

It's literally an anti-trust issue, by abusing your market position to block out competing cinema's showing certain movies.

Disney has been buying up many studios left and right, so I'm sure someone could raise an anti-trust issue against Disney+ too, just like what we have seen with cinema's.

This "vertical integration" done by Disney and other studios with their streaming platforms can lead to illegal monopolization.

Can you find any links that show that it’s illegal?

Streaming services do not stop others having streaming services. Disney is not taking up any physical area that blocks consumers from going to Netflix. You can still pay for Netflix and exercise your consumer choice.

Physical cinemas might have an argument but that’s like saying and Apple Store is an anti trust issue because they stop Google selling their products in the same location….

Physical locations are rented by stores and companies for that very reason! Disney could make their own retail chain and only sell Disney merchandise and it would be perfectly fine. Why is a cinema any different?