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 Facing 'Resistance' From Turner in Effort to Get TV Rights of 'Star Wars' Films for Streaming Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that’s what people wanted back then, right? Everybody was moaning over why they have to pay the cable companies for hundred of channels they didn’t want. People said they wanted ala carte.
Well, now we are moving to “ala carte” where each studios have their own services.
Careful of what you wished for, I guess.
The trick is, as long as these services don’t force long term contracts, you can always pay just for the months you want to enjoy the content and then cancel the service. So let’s say there will be a lot of binge watching during vacation months, then just subscribe during those months and cancel.
The 1977 version that I saw at the theater in 1977.
[doublepost=1533357151][/doublepost]
I have no idea how profitable they are, but TCM is one of the best channels on cable.
This article/report seems to contradict itself. Turner has the cable broadcast and ad-supported streaming on demand rights.
But later on the article says, “If Disney doesn't get the rights back, its streaming service would be missing one of the main franchises that many users would be signing up for...”
As far as I can tell, Disney still owns the ad-free SVOD rights. I mean, The Last Jedi is on Netflix as we speak.
So regardless of this deal, Disney should have all the Star Wars films in their package at the launch of their new streaming platform, they just might not be the EXCLUSIVE way to watch Star Wars until 2024. TNT/TBS could host ad-supported streams in their apps.
But later on the article says, “If Disney doesn't get the rights back, its streaming service would be missing one of the main franchises that many users would be signing up for...”
As far as I can tell, Disney still owns the ad-free SVOD rights. I mean, The Last Jedi is on Netflix as we speak.
So regardless of this deal, Disney should have all the Star Wars films in their package at the launch of their new streaming platform, they just might not be the EXCLUSIVE way to watch Star Wars until 2024. TNT/TBS could host ad-supported streams in their apps.
There is no problem here. Removing Star Wars content from TBS/TNT prematurely isn’t going to create some demand that isn’t there. This is just for some blurb in their advertising.
Disney is probably working on some combination package deal for its customers:
1. Streaming 1-2 devices;
2. Streaming 1-2 devices and Broadcasting;
3. Broadcasting only;
4. Streaming 2+ devices; or
5. Streaming 2+ devices and Broadcasting.
Netflix does something similar except it has 4K HDR options, I don’t believe 4K HDR will be extra with Disney. Their want control over their assets and not competing with itself. This complicates and frustrates the customer, something Disney is trying to stay away from.
[doublepost=1533391882][/doublepost]
Disney can afford it and will survive, it has multiple revenue streams. Tuner knows this, it is them who is fearful hence their do not want to let this asset go. Even if Turner holds out till 2024, it will be a bag of hurt after the initial deal ends.
[doublepost=1533391987][/doublepost]
Turner knows this, even if their sold their rights to Disney the inevitable will happen earlier vice later (2024).
Exactly. They have this now, it's called Satellite and Cable TV LOL. It's almost like people just don't want to pay. Then they will complain about ads. And that it's like amateurs are doing it. Look into how songwriters are being compensated for streams (they aren't) and it will become apparent why good songs are becoming harder to find.
I thought Netflix was supposed to be the answer and rival to Cable/Sat TV. Then the studios got greedy and the model started to get strained and possible unsustainable. We are going through the MP3 music situation again.
People do want to pay, what is reasonable is another question. To consumers it should be around $9.99 (local currency) per month for 4K HDR on 1-2 devices, the situation arises when the studios try to nickel and dime to acquire profit for content that has already paid for itself multi-folds over. There is a balance that needs to be struck, have we gotten that with Apple Music, etc I am unsure. This pricing structure, options is in its experimental phase for TV shows and Movies.
If you receive something for free, then expect commercials/advertisements. If you pay for something you should not. The Cable/Sat companies in the effort for more profits and greed to throw in commercials for paid usage. Why am I paying to watch commercials when the advertisement companies are paying the Cable/Sat providers to do so. Seems the providers created the situation and then cry about it when people move towards other methods of media consumption, shocking.
Um, what you’re describing is basically cable TV. One provider. Many options.
I’ll be the first to admit, I really wanted streaming to take off and break the backs of the lazy cable companies, with their ridiculous prices, hundreds of junk channels, and garbage settop boxes. Lesson learned. Be careful what you wish for. The streaming future looks far worse than cable as we get nickel and dimed in order to watch one thing here and another thing there.
The only benefit I now see is that I’m not forced to pay for a bunch of things I don’t want anyway. I’d never subscribe to the Disney service. None of their content is so appealing that I’d pay a monthly fee for access. I might rent a movie every now and then, but that’s it. I’m not interested in watching Star Wars again and again. If content producers start restricting content to only their apps over services like Netflix or Hulu, I think a lot of consumers will grow tired of having to subscribe to and manage so many services that cable will start to look appealing again.
I cut-the-cord a long time ago, I believe it has been a decade or longer. Streaming ever since, not sure if you are doing it correctly. About 15 years ago I ripped all my DVD collection put it on an external HDD, anytime I travelled or in my house I unplugged/plugged to whatever computer and watched my collection, at that time no USB port on TV’s, so I connected my laptop to it. Too easy. I migrated to a NAS, etc. For a while now I have uploaded my collection to the cloud, it took a while however I am no longer restricted while travelling and I do not have to carry an external HDD around with me.
I understand not all have the luxury of high speed internet, however if there is a will there is a way. Complaining about it and waiting for change to benefit the customer will only happen if people voice and action their view. No action, no change. Complaining is great as a first step, as we have identified a problem.
I should mention I have no USB sticks, external drive or SD cards, no NAS, nothing attached to my iPad Pro. It truly is liberating that I can access my media and files from anywhere bar there is an internet connection, if not use offline option.
Last edited:
I still think it's the way to go. Provided, of course, they get rid of the 198-498 channels of junk they manage to include in these bundles.
Similar to other products available on the market, this is referred to as “filler” or “junk filler”
My bad, I was referring to a streaming service all along, like Netflix. But, to be honest, it makes more sense to just rip our collections and watch from there - exactly the movies-series we want and no ads whatsoever...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
One view of the 198-498 is that we are being charged for those channels we never watch. In other words, total cable bill divided by number of channels we get = the charge for every single channel. Thus, we're being ripped off by having to pay for channels we never watch.
Another view of the same is that there's 198-498 of (commercial-based) subsidies on channels I never HAVE to watch. Modern cable/satt boxes usually have a "FAVS" channel option where you can basically add only the channels you want to watch and then the guide will only show those channels when you pull up the guide (and this is still the closest way to approximate the al-a-carte dream so often slung around here). Meanwhile, in the (now) invisible background, there are 198-498 other channels running commercials we never see to help pay for them AND also stuff appearing on the channels that end up in our FAV list.
Subsidies are OPM contributing to the total bill... but we keep generally wishing that away while simultaneously NOT wanting to pay MORE for only the favs channels (or programs) AND not wanting commercials even on the FAV channels/programs (in spite of the subsidy). And while we wish away that subsidy, we also want a much lower price too.
In the end, somebody has to pay for it. If we wish away channels we don't HAVE to watch AND we wish away the commercials on the channels we do watch, then it's us- the wishers- who have to cough up the extra money to cover the total bill including the part formally paid for by other people.
Where this goes is that household television costs an average of about $73/month in the "antiquated" and "greedy" model. None of the suppliers want that amount per household to go lower. So we're migrating away from 200-500 channels for about $73/month on average towards the equivalent of about 10 or 20 channels (in one form or another) for at least the same $73 but probably a higher amount... especially when factoring in the cost of broadband alone vs. broadband bundled into double or triple play deals. In short, the sellers want to hold or raise the average revenue-per-household, not significantly lower it. So they are reconfiguring the distribution options to give "us" what "we" (think "we") want. But net result is the same money or more will likely be buying LESS in one way or another... or several others.
IMO: at the end of this "transition," we'll generally be paying more-to-much-more for less-to-much-less... and probably whining for the "good old days" when less money than "what I pay now" could cover both 200-500 channels offered in a single, simple, all-inclusive guide with a fully functional DVR and DD 5.1 sound PLUS broadband too.
Last edited:
I haven’t had cable in 10 years. Like you, I ripped everything I had and continue to rip movies from time to time. That said, the average consumer doesn’t understand anything you wrote. Yes, people like us on these forums can set up home media servers and rip movies, etc, but the average TV watcher? Ha.
None of that has anything to do, however, with the problem of too many streaming providers costing too much money. Under the old, much loathed, cable model, one got a bunch of crap one didn’t want, but it all evened out in the end. Under the new streaming model, if you want to watch Handmaid’s Tale, that’s $8-$12 for Hulu. Want to watch Stranger Things? Another $20 for Netflix. Star Trek Discovery? $10 for CBS. Live TV? $25+ for Sling and other such services. HBO? $20. The new Apple programming? $$$??? New Disney service? $$$??? Etc.
Add all of this up and eventually you’re going to pay as much as, if not more than, cable. I’m happy with my setup now. I pay for Hulu and Netflix. If anything I find that streaming has encouraging me to watch less TV. I never have tv on as background noise. I’m more selective when it comes to what I watch. That’s why this Disney service has zero interest to me. I might very well watch a Disney or Marvel movie on Netflix, but there’s no way I’m paying Disney for yet another service. I think consumers are going to quickly tire of having to pay multiple content providers every month for content.
When people were crying for "ala carte" they weren't thinking clearly. They did the math and thought "Well, I'm paying $100 for 200 channels. That's $0.50/channel. I should be able to pick the 20 channels I actually watch and pay $10/month." Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. As many here have pointed out, the providers charge the cable/satellite companies different amounts for different channels and many are part of packages that cover the costs of the less-popular ones. Also, some channels like the dozen of shopping networks actually pay the cable company to be carried which is why those are part of every cable package; even the ~$25 "just the basics" plans.
The problem I have with the Disney "we'll just do it ourselves" plan is not the loss of content (not a huge Disney film-watching household here) but the precedent that it will set should it be successful.
The problem I have with the Disney "we'll just do it ourselves" plan is not the loss of content (not a huge Disney film-watching household here) but the precedent that it will set should it be successful.
I consider the original theatrical version that played in the theaters, of each film, to be the original theatrical releases.
Harmy's Despecialized versions are the superior versions because they contain all the various audio versions released over the years. For all I know, they probably include later alternate effects scenes in the camera angle tracks. Somehow, a fan with his home PC was able to put together the definitive version of the films, but Lucasfilm and Disney, with all the resources in the world and more money than god, and an actual market for them, can't. Instead, we get hokey CGi and a worsening sewerpipe of garbage like TFA and TLJ. Star Wars is dead. Star Wars remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? Etc etc etc
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Disney Service will soon be Disney (which is more than just what we think of as Disney movies- there's a WHOLE lot of video brands already under the Disney "parent" brand) PLUS Fox (which is also a whole bunch of things beyond Star Wars and Marvel). 2 major Studios around for 80+ years with accumulated libraries of content that is insanely large & diverse. A whole lot of generally high-desire stuff is NOT branded Disney or Fox here... but Disney will soon control it all.
You pay for Hulu and soon Hulu will be 60% owned by Disney too: Disney's share + Fox's share. Do you believe Disney will leave Hulu at cheap pricing AND continue to let it provide so much of the Disney & Fox offerings? That's a rhetorical question. The answer is almost certainly NO.
Netflix will be stripped of it's more desirable content, except it's own creations. Disney + Fox is not the only player here. Comcast + Universal is already in play. AT&T + Warner is another new merger kid on the block. Each is setting up the same play. Each will control a bunch of desirable content. The option of opting for 2 cheapies like Hulu + Netflix will become a weak option. Why? The bulk of the good stuff is going to be on these other services... perhaps exclusively. If one wants to watch that stuff, there will be ONE streaming choice.
Will people actually tire of it? Do they tire of Apple raising prices to stop buying? Do they tire of cell phone provider shenanigans to stop playing? Consumers will just roll over and pay. The conviction to do without is very likely not strong enough. It's a seller's market and has been for a very long time. Buyers may whine... but then just roll over and buy. This will not be different.
[doublepost=1533419543][/doublepost]
Pandora has already opened that box. They already KNOW it will be successful. That's partly whey entities like Comcast and AT&T now own huge libraries of content from what used to be stand-alone studio entities. Eventually, there will be the equivalent of AT&T & Verizon for this industry too, with one or two others playing as Tmobile and Sprint. And then relatively tiny boutiques like regional cell providers.
- Disney+Fox, Comcast+Universal, AT&T+Warner, Sony+Columbia+MGM (probably one of these 4 swallows up the rest of the mid-major players, and maybe Viacom remains a 5th major?)
- HBO, Showtime, Playboy and similar, Netflix, Amazon, Apple(?), etc
- then very niche stuff like WWE and similar
- Plus, Sports players: NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc.
And the traditional middlemen (broadband providers) will jack up prices of broadband to make up for ever-fading cable/satt on the very same argument made by their cellular broadband cousins: "...for higher bandwidth users like video streamers." These broadband monopolies or duopolies in some cases will pinch hard mostly because "where you going to go?" and consumers will just roll over and pay up- whining about it- but then pay anyway.
Discs & owning is probably killed because rentals on demand is recurring revenue for the very same stuff over and over forever.
At (some sense of) the end: we'll find ourselves paying more each month for less breadth & depth of programming, probably lower quality signals (note how none of the streamers offer DD 5.1 now), less featured DVR functionality, all completely dependent on a broadband pipe from what is typically a single provider.
Welcome to "the future." A lot of "us" here longed for this by deluding ourselves into believing it could come, maybe Apple could offer everything from one source (and take their big cut right off the top) and somehow we'd get all that commercial (subsidy) free for a huge discount off of traditional cable/satt rates.
Last edited:
The streaming market (whether video or audio) is a cash cow. Business 101 is "supply and demand." After the initial startup costs (obtaining the media in digital format and the subsequent rights to transmit them), the supply is unlimited. That is, meeting market demands for CDs, DVDs, BluRay involves a lot of forecasting. Make too many and you need to have fire sales to get rid of it all or you simply write it off and send it to a landfill. Make too few and you're not realizing the full potential of your investment. The cost of streaming "The Complete History of the Shower Curtain Ring" versus "Star Wars: Episode 27" (ETA 2023 at this rate) is the same.
With streaming, if demand is higher than you expected, you simply spin up more cloud servers which are literally pennies per hour. Your supply is essentially infinite. Whether each server handles 10 or 100 or 1000 simultaneous streams is proprietary to Netflix, Disney, etc. but mostly irrelevant. The fact is that once you're playback software (app) is built and distributed and you have the rights to stream, this business model is a lot like being able to print your own money.
I feel that subscription-based, studio-owned streaming services will be growing in numbers, not consolidating. And consumers will happily shell out the money for it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I agree except the "happily" part in the last sentence. Right now, many consumers are still in the delusion that some way, somehow a fat discount for us is coming... but we'll be able to get everything, maybe commercial-free.
Reality is going to make them NOT be "happily."
I suspect in a few years, the typical equation is going to shift from: "I get 200 channels at $100 per month, so that's 50 cents per channel. I only want 10 channels, so my bill should be $5. What a ripoff! Greedy cable companies!"
I suspect it will become: "I used to get 200 channels of programming for only $100 per month. 200 channels times about 18 hours of programming per day = 108,000 hours of programming per month for that $100. Now I pay a total of $150 each month to the "big 5" suppliers so I can watch most of what I want. We stream only about 700 hours of programming for that $150 at my house. What a ripoff! Greedy studios!
Oh and now I pay about twice as much as I used to pay for my broadband too, partially because about 200 of those hours pushes me over the ever-shrinking wired broadband cap. What a ripoff! Greedy broadband providers."
Reality is going to make them NOT be "happily."
I suspect in a few years, the typical equation is going to shift from: "I get 200 channels at $100 per month, so that's 50 cents per channel. I only want 10 channels, so my bill should be $5. What a ripoff! Greedy cable companies!"
I suspect it will become: "I used to get 200 channels of programming for only $100 per month. 200 channels times about 18 hours of programming per day = 108,000 hours of programming per month for that $100. Now I pay a total of $150 each month to the "big 5" suppliers so I can watch most of what I want. We stream only about 700 hours of programming for that $150 at my house. What a ripoff! Greedy studios!
Oh and now I pay about twice as much as I used to pay for my broadband too, partially because about 200 of those hours pushes me over the ever-shrinking wired broadband cap. What a ripoff! Greedy broadband providers."
Last edited:
Of course, you're right. "Happily" was a bit cynical (though I'm sure you'll also read some reviews praising this model, once available). One really only needs to look at the history of promises that cable TV gave the consumers to see history repeating itself.
Cable: "Top notch entertainment options that are commercial free transmitted in a quality that blows over-the-air (antenna) broadcasts away." Reality: commercial-free became "limited commercials" which became "just as many commercials as" and finally, today, a 30-minute show has 13 minutes of commercials on some channels. It also didn't take too long before "top notch" entertainment could only be viewed on "premium" channels like HBO. Then, pay-per-view became an option and you would see releases delayed so that they could be offered on PPV for a month or two before even HBO would get them (for those younger than 30, HBO used to show actual movies).
Cable: "Catch the big fight or the big game on cable... not available anywhere else unless you have a subscription." Reality: anything like the boxing or wrestling matches have moved to the PPV $50+ model.
Cable: "Sure, you have to pay for it but that's what funds all these great shows." Reality: there are so many channels available now, we can really air whatever we want. Let's follow some idiot (Q-list "celebrity" or someone with a YouTube channel) around town with a camera as they shop for new shoes. There's a show! We only have to pay a producer and a camera person. The idiot will do it for free.
The point I'm making is that CBS and Hulu have already shown that paying for the service doesn't guarantee ad-free streaming (even in their "almost, but not quite entirely ad-free" premium plans). They've also shown us that paying for it doesn't guarantee complete content (episodes or entire seasons missing from the libraries of many shows, not to mention some shows not even appearing in their "complete" libraries). Soon, we can add Disney to this mix.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right. And what makes all that go? Consumers may whine but will just pay. And Sellers know this.
If the bulk of us consumers would ever play the "NO!" card as a group, Sellers would immediately become more responsive to consumer wants & needs. As is, they can do about whatever they want and the bulk of us will find a way to handsomely reward them for it. Even the lowly mouse does not excitedly leap into the trap... and then celebrates the catch after the trap has snapped.
If the bulk of us consumers would ever play the "NO!" card as a group, Sellers would immediately become more responsive to consumer wants & needs. As is, they can do about whatever they want and the bulk of us will find a way to handsomely reward them for it. Even the lowly mouse does not excitedly leap into the trap... and then celebrates the catch after the trap has snapped.
Last edited:
I agree about the not happily part. The fundamental problem hasn’t been solved. People didn’t like the idea that they were paying for a bunch of channels/content they weren’t watching. Well nothing changes here. You’re just paying multiple people less each per month, but you’re still getting a bunch of stuff you don’t want. I’ll use CBS as an example. I subscribed in order to watch Discovery. After it was over, I cancelled my subscription because I didn’t care for anything else. If this sort of thing is the future of TV consumption, I do think consumers will reject the model and instead return to the all you can eat cable model. Just because streaming services are growing, that doesn’t mean cable goes away. Consumers can just as easily return to cable as they can cut the chord.
I always wish Apple has done something more with their iTunes TV shows. It made little sense to buy seasons of shows one would likely only watch once (although I certainly bought a few). Had they charged a reasonable rate and only let you watch each episode once or twice, I think it could have been much more popular.
Anyway, I’m not very enthusiastic about the coming fragmentation of the streaming market. I’ve seriously considered going back to cable. It’s much simpler.