The whole point of cutting the cable was to get rid of commercials, now they are everywhere and personalized to your viewing and shopping patterns. The trade off is completely worse, I for one miss watching the kids toy commercials since they kept me up to date with my kids latest and greatest gadgets lololol
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 Launching Cheaper, Ad-Supported Version of Disney+ Starting in Late 2022 [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s nothing like the UK licence fee. That pays for BBC channels that have no ad breaks and relatively strict rules about product placement. The UK’s ad-funded channels aren’t covered by the licence fee, including publicly-owned Channel 4.
Maybe for you, but the main reason cord cutting took off was the high price of cable tv service and their yearly price increases, and paying for channels and content that people didn't watch, not the commercials.
Cord-cutting reasons in the U.S. 2024| Statista
The primary reason for cutting the cord in the United States was the cost - cable was too expensive for nearly three in four respondents to a 2024 survey.
www.statista.com
Maybe for you, but the main reason cord cutting took off was the high price of cable tv service and their yearly price increases, and paying for channels and content that people didn't watch, not the commercials.
Cord-cutting reasons in the U.S. 2024| Statista
The primary reason for cutting the cord in the United States was the cost - cable was too expensive for nearly three in four respondents to a 2024 survey.
Exactly.
But then people get hit from the opposite direction:
"Dang... now I gotta subscribe to five different services to see all my shows?!?!?
?
Having 5 different and concurrent streaming services would still be less than subscribing to cable tv for me.
Zero people want to pay to watch ads. ZERO. Data does NOT "say otherwise."The data that's available says otherwise.
There's an ad-free Hulu plan for those who want it.
When a majority of Hulu subscriber are on the ad-supported plan, no, it's not what everybody wants.
Hulu Says 70% of Its 82 Million Viewers Are on Ad-Supported Plan
Advertising remains a key driver of Hulu's business: Of its 82 million viewers, about 70% -- or 58 million -- are on the ad-supported plan.variety.com
What data shows is that people want to pay less money, and that some are willing to compromise their enjoyment for a cheaper price.
That doesn't mean companies should be doing this. Ads suck. Everybody hates them. Yes, even you. If you say you like ads, you are lying.
Having 5 different and concurrent streaming services would still be less than subscribing to cable tv for me.
True... but people still complain!
Where did I say people want to pay to see ads?My statement of "The data that's available says otherwise" is in direct response to your statement that "This [a cheaper ad-supported version of Disney+] is such a stupid, awful idea."
In other wods, a cheaper ad-supported version of Disney+ is not a stupid awful idea, and there's plenty of data to back this up.
I hate most ads. But some ads are kind of fun to see such as the special ones during the Super Bowl.
It’s a good service with tons of content, but once you’ve burned through the good stuff it’s a ‘once a year’ subscription for me. I’m all for paying for things I consume but I’m not haemorrhaging money year-round just for the privilege of aimlessly surfing through thumbnails when I’m bored. Rather read a book. Same goes for all the streaming services, in fairness, but screw paying for adverts. I’d hazard a guess they already monetise user data.
I’d rather they worked on their interface. I don’t care if it’s marvel or star or whatever, just let me search it all by genre.
Give it five more years and streaming will be where it left television some 10 years ago - fragmentation, ads, shovel content to keep the programme running 24/7.
Or the streaming services decided to add the ads inside the movies and series.
No, not cutting scenes to make intervals for the ads. *INSIDE* the movies.
Let it go, let it go
You'll never see me cry
Here I stand and here I stay
Zoloft makes me live every day
"You need a licence if you watch or record shows as they’re being broadcast on TV." this applies to any station any type of live content while the beeb benefits from the fee. So you're in effect still paying to watch that content on your TV with ads in the middle, even if you never tuned into the BBC.
If you cord cut, and only watch on demand then it solely applies to the BBC's content.
100% agree. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for a service that INCLUDES ads. That means you would be paying to essentially watch ads ... This is a precedent started by Paramount+ and I'll never purchase their service because of this. These services need to give customers a choice of a free tier with ads or a paid tier with no ads. Put it back on the advertisers, raise the price for advertising to them, not the customer please.Make it free with ads... then we'll talk.
Otherwise... step off with that nonsense.
People here joke about this nonsense, and I came here to do the same, but you better believe that people are gonna jump on this. People want access to Disney movies and if they can substitute the cost by „simply“ watching a moving billboard, they’re gonna do it. Bet.
If I was at Disney, I’d call this genius, because they can set new standards with this crap. A few more years and this will be common in the industry.
Apart for Apple 🤞🏻
If I was at Disney, I’d call this genius, because they can set new standards with this crap. A few more years and this will be common in the industry.
Apart for Apple 🤞🏻
Definitely better to subscribe to a plan without ads. Not good to pay for the service and still get ads.
It would be somewhat bareable if it wasn't the same ads over and over again. Then again, I'm not paying any company to watch ads.
"Cheaper" is relative; the new ad-supported tier might cost the same as the current ad-free offering, which will in turn be cheaper than the new, higher-priced ad-free tier. I wouldn't expect any new tier to be priced less than the current price.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
Free with ads is fine, but if I'm paying I get the no ads, or nothing at all.
There's already far too much free content out there for the time I have available to watch stuff.
And I'm a Gen X'er, so I can live with ads (time your pee breaks within them)
There's already far too much free content out there for the time I have available to watch stuff.
And I'm a Gen X'er, so I can live with ads (time your pee breaks within them)
Why bother. Its $8 month or $80 a year ($6.66/month). All the Marvel content that was on Netflix has been removed and will be added to Disney + on March 16th.
Disney Plus is getting the Marvel Netflix shows on March 16th
All of Marvel’s Netflix-produced shows are coming home to Disney Plus.www.theverge.com
Because you have to read the tea leaves. The ad supported version will be “lower cost” because they will be rapidly increasing the price of the normal subscription.
How does this negate what I said? I understand what they're offering. What I'm saying is that nobody whose time has value is going to save $5/mo or whatever tiny amount to watch a bunch of ads. So this is specifically targeting the poor. Obviously Disney wasn't squeezing enough value out of them with the regular subscription cost, but now it can get just that tiny amount more by making them jump through the hoops of watching many ads if they want to save their precious $5. Nobody's forcing them to do anything just like nobody's forcing students to get loans, nobody's forcing people to go to a particular doctor to take care of their health, nobody was forcing people to work unpaid internships or stay at jobs they hate, nobody's forcing people to buy houses at an inflated cost, nobody's forcing people to buy expensive healthy food over cheap junk food. I think a more applicable word than "force" is "coerce" - Disney is coercing the poor into watching ads to squeeze a little more value out of them, and dangling a lesser value savings on their subscription in return. Disney isn't doing this because they're a charity, they're doing it to squeeze a tiny fraction more value out of poor people. Some executive got a bonus over this idea. A miserable improvement on another cash grab streaming service working to make online content even worse than cable TV used to be. If the content was really compelling, they should have the confidence to charge people when they use it, not charge a fee every month whether the use it or not. But I digress.