Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If every content producer starts up their own streaming service, cord cutting will cost a fortune, be a total pain in the ass, and drive everybody back to cable and satellite. It's either going to be simple and reasonably priced, or ultimately a total failure.
 
This is the one service I have been waiting for. I hope the 90’s Disney afternoon lineup is on there. The
 
Read my post again. If they’re only offering a couple dozen shows, what makes you think they would price it any higher? Especially now, with Disney and their tremendous amount of high quality content at $6.99? Cook isn’t stupid, and now everyone who was complaining about Apple not pre-announcing the price know exactly why they did that.

Like I said, if they also have third party content that people want to watch, they can charge more.

Apple's hubris. Apple sees themselves as superior to all competitors and that their customers will pay whatever they charge them. They'll tout their content as superior to everything else out in the market and will price it as such. Their track record is all the proof one needs.
 
Apple's hubris. Apple sees themselves as superior to all competitors and that their customers will pay whatever they charge them. They'll tout their content as superior to everything else out in the market and will price it as such. Their track record is all the proof one needs.
That’s a ridiculous take; Apple’s customers aren’t willing to pay whatever Apple wants to charge; rather Apple charges what customers are willing to pay. That’s simple economics 101.

Apple makes a fortune charging what the market will bear. If in fact 30-50 million are willing to pay $10-15 a month for a couple dozen originals, I guess I’ll be wrong about the value of that offering, and Apple will be right. Let’s revisit this after Apple launches. I don’t have any problem admitting when I’m wrong, we’ll see if the same applies to you :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal
Interesting you bring up Amazon -- that's more how I see what Apple is doing here, than a competitor to Disney. Apple is providing added value for its customers with a video streaming service, which just like Amazon, they are making available to non-Apple customers for a fee. Otherwise the models are very similar, third party catalogue items for purchase, both will be shut out of the studios offerings for streaming, and both will offer in app subscriptions to third party services to provide convenience. This is not a case of Apple going head-to-head against Disney -- that would be impossible really unless Apple were to buy a studio.



Yup, that's how I got Amazon Prime Video -- otherwise I would have never paid for the service. And since I had it already, I now subscribe to CBS All Access through it, as the picture quality and streaming is superior to CBS' own servers and app.



It's got nothing to do with being an Apple fan. I've been predicting doom for Netflix, long before Apple even hinted at launching a streaming service.

It's well know that Academy Awards do not drive audiences. Just because Netflix is "legitimized" by the industry, doesn't mean they can pay their rent, or customers will find those products compelling enough to shell out for every month, at least enough to sustain them. Netflix has to offer something more than its original catalogue of hit and miss programming, financed at a substantial deficit.

The problem with Netflix is that they have nothing else beside their original programming once the studios pull back their catalogue content for their own services. And customers will have to make a decision about whether to subscribe to Netflix, which gets more expensive by the year, and Disney, ATT, and Comcast, which will also offer a vast catalogue of programming in addition to new original content. Apple won't be competing with that, and neither will Amazon. Hulu is part of Disney, so that leaves only Netflix buried under a mountain of debt, and fast losing its primary income streams.

That's just the reality of the situation.

The reality is: Is that Netflix is doing fine and gaining ground. They have been preparing for the withdrawal of others content for quite some time. The main complaint I heard in the first days of Netflix streaming was: "It's all old stuff" Once they started with their own content those complaints faded away. Most Apple fans going after Netflix and Disney are just angry that neither will give their content to Apple. The thread reads the same as the News Apps thread where Apple fans are predicting the downfall of the Times and the Post, again because they won't give their content to Apple at 50% profit.

Apple fans are so predictable in their worship of Apple and they can't seem to figure out that not everyone wants to live in an all Apple world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ipponrg
If every content producer starts up their own streaming service, cord cutting will cost a fortune, be a total pain in the ass, and drive everybody back to cable and satellite. It's either going to be simple and reasonably priced, or ultimately a total failure.
No, people won’t be driven back to cable/satellite, because the streaming content won’t be available there. So cable/satellite isn’t a suitable alternative.

A la carte means you pay only for what you want. Maybe you want Criterion, Crunchy Roll and Britbox. I might want Netflix, Disney and Hulu. Someone else HBO, Showtime and Amazon Prime. Yet another wants all of the above.

If you have a better idea I’m sure everyone would like to hear it, or at least I would.
 
Last edited:
The reality is: Is that Netflix is doing fine and gaining ground. They have been preparing for the withdrawal of others content for quite some time. The main complaint I heard in the first days of Netflix streaming was: "It's all old stuff" Once they started with their own content those complaints faded away. Most Apple fans going after Netflix and Disney are just angry that neither will give their content to Apple. The thread reads the same as the News Apps thread where Apple fans are predicting the downfall of the Times and the Post, again because they won't give their content to Apple at 50% profit.

Apple fans are so predictable in their worship of Apple and they can't seem to figure out that not everyone wants to live in an all Apple world.

I don’t need everyone to live in an all-Apple world. Those who do will vote with their wallets accordingly, I believe that there are enough of us in an absolute sense to still make Apple very successful, and Apple’s balance sheet will speak for itself at the end of the day.

These companies who don’t make their services available to the Apple ecosystem won’t get my money, plain and simple. I may be just one person, and I won’t make a difference to their bottom line, but I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

That said, let’s not pretend that Netflix is somehow invincible or otherwise immune to the effects of competition. I am currently subscribed to Netflix because at $10 a month, I am indifferent between staying subscribing and cancelling my subscription even if I sometimes go for weeks without watching a single show inside (mainly just watching Sabrina and Discovery at the moment). Netflix will eventually have to raise their prices if they want to make a profit and when they do, I wonder how many people will stick around?

Netflix is in a far more precarious position here than Apple and no one seems to want to acknowledge this.
 
Oh...a super hero wearing a costume. Sure. If you are 10 years old.

There is zero interesting or intellectual content enough to switch from Netflix. Documentaries? International shows? Unless your parents are rich, or YOU are rich, this streaming "disney" service is dead-on-arrival. I expect them to pivot or shut shop in 4 years.

Saving this comment for future claim chowder :)

At some point in the next four years I recommend you take a moment and learn what other content Disney owns. You like Documentaries like the brand new Free Solo? Owned by Disney. You might be surprised by what other properties they own.

Fun times in this industry ahead!
 
The reality is: Is that Netflix is doing fine and gaining ground. They have been preparing for the withdrawal of others content for quite some time. The main complaint I heard in the first days of Netflix streaming was: "It's all old stuff" Once they started with their own content those complaints faded away. Most Apple fans going after Netflix and Disney are just angry that neither will give their content to Apple. The thread reads the same as the News Apps thread where Apple fans are predicting the downfall of the Times and the Post, again because they won't give their content to Apple at 50% profit.

Apple fans are so predictable in their worship of Apple and they can't seem to figure out that not everyone wants to live in an all Apple world.
Ridiculous. “Most Apple fans” don’t expect Netflix or Disney to give (I assume you mean available as an Apple Channel inside the TV app?) Apple their content; why would you think that? Certainly not based on what’s been posted here.

And I’ve been following the Apple News+ thread; I don’t remember any “Apple fans” predicting the downfall of the NYT or WaPo if they don’t join. On the contrary, both of those papers are doing just fine and will continue to do so without Apple News+. Is it a surprise that people are willing to pay for high quality content, whether from Apple or others?
 
Last edited:
Move over, Netflix. Your dwindling old movies library and high(er) prices will be your downfall. It was good while it lasted!
 
You might want to check Disney’s owned content and subsidiaries.

FAR from a “children’s entertainment” company.
I'm aware the Disney company is into all sorts of stuff but this article is about the Disney+ channel which, from the description in the article, appears to be limited to childrens' content.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WatchFromAfar
I had hoped for some time now that Apple would buy Disney. With the cash they threw away in stock repurchases they could have bought Disney twice over. When it comes to real entertainment assets, Disney is second to none in my humble opinion.

Apple could have bought Disney in the past. But Disney prepared itself in the last few years and became again the entertainment juggernaut it was born to be. Disney’s market cap is now $233 billion (and growing), while Apple has some $245 billion in cash (and growing).

While Apple could still theoretically buy Disney, it would consume nearly all its cash. Plus, I supppose Apple would have to offer a premium to buy Disney, as I imagine such a traditional company with such a bright future would not be sold just for its market cap. And not even Apple would have the money to buy that.
 
It's possible, but life is also getting "busier", so who has time to watch all these channels and content? Seriously!? Wait.... we all have screens in our pockets, so we can watch anywhere! Damn!

Now, as for Disney going with the "+" naming convention... trying to piggyback off of Apple? (no, Apple did not invent this, I know.... but it's their current convention, so the timing is suspect).

It is exactly the opposite. Disney+ was announced back then.

When Apple announced Apple TV+, it sounded like some sort of copycat.

But to be honest, there might be some corporate espionage out there, which makes it impossible to know which one came first, and even if one copied the other.
 
It's the other way around. It's the haters who want to make everything an example of how Apple is supposedly failing, with the never-ending torrent of "Apple is doomed because it isn't doing X" posts.

Remember how people claimed that Apple Music was doomed because it could never compete with Spotify? Now, it has more paid subscribers in the US.

Two can play that game.

Streaming music and TV have gone different ways. I can stream nearly every song I want from both Spotify and Apple Music. They are kind of interchangeable. I can choose between both these services based on the interface or the features. The content is very similar, give or take a few exceptions. So, I do not need to have both. This also means that Spotify subscribers can easily move to Apple Music if it offers better value, features or interface.

With TV, streaming services are moving in another direction. They are all in a race to offer exclusive content. It means that, to have it all, you need to subscribe to all these services. But the content does not even exist yet; it is being created and beefed up at this very moment. They are all competing to offer future content. And some consumers are already worried about how they can afford buying all this content that they do not need, they never had, they will not have time to watch, and they do not even know how good it is, because it simply does not exist yet.

The only streaming service that has impressed me so far is Disney+.

Netflix used to be a good deal, but now it is only losing property (as other studios claim back their own to protect themselves and their own services), rushing to put out new content which is not necessarily attractive, and raising its prices in the process. I have watched a few of the new Netflix shows, and some are OK or good but quite generic and replaceable.

Apple showed off a bunch of big names, but no real thing. Apple announced some series that sounded really unattractive to me at this point. It has a lot of money to make a great subscription service, but, at least in my impression, the announcements have been missteps so far. There are some people anticipating Apple TV+. But, honestly, if any company other than Apple had made the same announcement, would it still get the same amount of excitement? I doubt it.

Disney+ has a lot of familiar content. The back catalog is high quality and significant. Disney animated classics. Pixar. Marvel. Star Wars. And now Fox. Almost 100 years of content produced beefed up by recent acquisitions. And new series and movies based on well-known properties. All of this with the perceived quality of a company that set standards for years. Apple may have more cash, but Disney is the real big player here, and the one that will be hard to beat.

The question is, how many subscription services will users be willing to pay for? And the other is, how many subscribers are needed for a subscription service be profitable? Is there room for Disney, Netflix, Apple TV, HBO, Amazon, and everyone else?

I will have one or two, as I will not have time for more. Occasionally, I may subscribe one for a month or so to watch some series. Disney+ is the top one for me now, and, unless it screws up big, I will certainly subscribe for that one. The others will still have to convince me.
 
It is exactly the opposite. Disney+ was announced back then.

When Apple announced Apple TV+, it sounded like some sort of copycat.

But to be honest, there might be some corporate espionage out there, which makes it impossible to know which one came first, and even if one copied the other.

Hulu Plus predated then both. And of course there was iPhone 7 Plus, etc.

Is the big innovation everyone is so up in arms about the change to using the symbol?
 
My original comment was that Disney culture wouldn't fit well with Apple in that they are entirely different companies with different motives. Disney is prioritizing global reach and ubiquity, and Apple seemingly wants to target people from within their ecosystem.

If you work in the streaming business, you would know that content is king, especially when you own entirely the 1st tier content. Acquiring content because an actor/director was tied to it does not mean it's an instant success. It's actually the not-so smart thing to do if you think you can muscle into the video content industry just by acquiring content (as Netflix's prior history has shown).
[doublepost=1555084612][/doublepost]

View attachment 831790

Of course content is king; what else is there to stream? And no one is predicting instant success for Apple or anything but likely success for Disney. The point of all of this is that Apple doesn't need, and would be foolish to spend a hundred billion to acquire the content when they can get a cut of it, and also get more value by slowing acquiring rights to their own content.

There's no secret to original content. The companies, Sony, Disney, Amazon, Netflix, Paramount, etc., etc., do exactly the same thing: they go to the exact same pool of actors, producers, directors, writers, etc., and give them money to produce TV shows and movies. Of course you want smart industry people to help organize all of this and Apple has hired some of the most successful people in the industry to be part of the Apple TV process. Remember, they are not trying to dominate the industry; they don't have to. All they have to do is add value to their trillion dollar ecosystem. That's why Apple has such a massive advantage as they can focus on quality value adds when a company like Netflix has but one source of income with ever increasing competitors to that single stream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
We know in ROTJ Boba dies in the most undramatic and shameful way though ;)

If you read the extended universe, Boba never dies and ends up climbing out.

It’s a shame that the current Star Wars direction did not take advantage of the lore from the books
[doublepost=1555161698][/doublepost]
Remember, they are not trying to dominate the industry; they don't have to. All they have to do is add value to their trillion dollar ecosystem

If that is all they desire, then we and the other major streaming services including Netflix can simply disregard anything Apple+ because they are content with being noncompetitive
 
Read my post again. If they’re only offering a couple dozen shows, what makes you think they would price it any higher? Especially now, with Disney and their tremendous amount of high quality content at $6.99? Cook isn’t stupid, and now everyone who was complaining about Apple not pre-announcing the price knows exactly why they did that. Who knows, maybe it’ll even be a bundled freebie.

Like I said, if they also have third party content that people want to watch, they can charge more.

The only reason apple can have at this point that they’re even doing this is having just enough content to get you to use the atv app. Their main purpose is to sell channels. Apple wins there. Because of this Apple can price their own service much lower and should. It won’t be past 4.99 and probably an add on to music or other services they have.

The shows and such are basically marketing expenses. This is why Apple is so desperate to get channels added. They’d love Disney plus to join the atv app. Apple wants you to buy the likes of Hulu and hbo through them and the atv app.

Apple direct competition here is amazon who does the same.
 
I'm aware the Disney company is into all sorts of stuff but this article is about the Disney+ channel which, from the description in the article, appears to be limited to childrens' content.

From an online article about Disney and their streaming plans:

"On Thursday afternoon at Disney’s Burbank lot, CEO Bob Iger opened the 2019 Investor Day by highlighting the “evergreen” quality of the Walt Disney Company’s content and explaining how that will propel their growing direct-to-consumer (DTC) business, which includes Disney+, Hulu (of which they now own 60%), ESPN+, and India’s Hotstar.

He was followed by Kevin Mayer, chairman of direct-to-consumer and international, who noted that in anticipation for their plans to enter the streaming marketplace, Disney purchased streaming services company Bamtech in 2016 and renamed it Disney Streaming Services.

Mayer also explained that even though Disney+, ESPN+, and Hulu will initially have to be paid as individual subscriptions, the company has plans to bundle the three at a discounted prize in the near future. He confirmed that unlike Hulu and ESPN+, which have ad-supported options, Disney+ will only be available as an ad-free service. The service is expected to be available globally in the future. Disney also plans to expand Hulu’s international footprint."

Full article written by Carlos Aguilar here: CartoonBrew

With the Star Wars and MCU films all being pulled from other streaming services the available content for Disney streaming will not just be kiddie fare, although they might put those on Hulu, which I did not know that Disney had controlling ownership of before reading this article.
[doublepost=1555166319][/doublepost]
Saving this comment for future claim chowder :)

At some point in the next four years I recommend you take a moment and learn what other content Disney owns. You like Documentaries like the brand new Free Solo? Owned by Disney. You might be surprised by what other properties they own.

Fun times in this industry ahead!

Disney owns National Geographic channel and all of the decades of documentaries that they have made. Documentaries don't factor into many viewers streaming decisions.
 
I'm aware the Disney company is into all sorts of stuff but this article is about the Disney+ channel which, from the description in the article, appears to be limited to childrens' content.
You think adults don’t watch this stuff? LOL!!!

BTW, did you listen to Iger? Disney will offer their other content through their streaming service for additional fees including ESPN, Hulu, etc.
 
You think adults don’t watch this stuff? LOL!!!
No, I don’t think that. That’s why I didn’t write that. (LOL)
[doublepost=1555169094][/doublepost]
Disney owns National Geographic channel and all of the decades of documentaries that they have made. Documentaries don't factor into many viewers streaming decisions.
There’s nothing left of the “old” National Geographic except the name. Looking right now at what’s on the NAtional Geographic UK channel and it’s five back to back episodes of a souped up gold digging competition followed by five back to back episodes of a souped up documentary of lorry driving in winter. No wonder they don’t figure in anyone’s decisions anymore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Baymowe335
Hulu Plus predated then both. And of course there was iPhone 7 Plus, etc.

Is the big innovation everyone is so up in arms about the change to using the symbol?

It is not important at all... The iPhone 7 Plus was in a different context. But it does not matter anyway.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.