Hopefully that will change. The reason Disney owns NatGeo is because Fox owned them. And from the content it shows.
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 Offers First Look at Upcoming Disney+ App, Launching in November for $6.99 Per Month [Update: Will Be Available on Apple Devices]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hopefully that will change. The reason Disney owns NatGeo is because Fox owned them. And from the content it shows.
Yes and what an ugly, cynical mess they’ve made of National Geographic. The one place left you could get decent nature shows and wildlife documentaries. What does Disney think people want to see when they tune in to National Geographic? Hour after hour of absurd caricatures of hicks and lunatics, portrayed by the dumbest and most delusional idiots they could find, wrecking up the countryside and aping for cameras. Utter garbage. Throw it on the fire with the Discovery channel, nature channel, learning channel, history channel, none of which have programming related to their names, all just hucking sensationalist culture war trash.
I don’t know where all these film school graduates are going off to work, but if apple hired some and put together a channel of actual quality content, they’d have no competition at all.
It makes sense.
Apple may not be willing to compete with content, as it is years behind Netflix and Amazon, and cannot dream of having the content of Disney. But it may have a handful of good series that could make its platform great when coupled with other streaming services.
But we will never know what is Apple’s true purpose here, and other streaming services may see it as a threat.
I haven’t watched National Geographic in a while, so I don’t know how bad/good is it.
What I will say is it is a misconception (and probably subjective) to assume Apple automatically delivers quality. For me, I think Apple is very opinionated in their content offerings. I don’t think that necessarily leads to a higher quality product
[doublepost=1555171172][/doublepost]
Apple has been always talking since the Jobs days about entering with a big presence into the video streaming business. They’ve arguably not done a great job yet at making other streaming services that concerned
I think we will have to wait and see how Apple+ rolls out. If Apple News+ is any indication of what to expect from Apple for their content services sector, then other major streaming services have nothing to worry about.
Disney didn't make a mess of National Geographic. Murdoch run Fox did. Disney got them when they bought Fox Entertainment. Just to be clear, the Murdochs still own and run Fox news, but none of the entertainment stations or companies.
There is nothing really concrete to say that Apple’s content will be good.
• Apple’s ads are well done, but that does not translate in good series.
• Apple’s hardware is known to have good quality, but that speaks nothing about the quality of its TV shows;
• Apple is committed to high levels of quality, but even some hardware choices (which is something much more objective) have been controversial over the years (Touch bar, butterfly keyboard, removal of headphone jack), let alone choices in TV shows;
• Apple hired some great names (who did some stuff that were great, and other stuff not so great), as if hiring Spielberg or Oprah to do something would automatically deliver a top-notch series;
• Steve Jobs was a major player in Pixar’s story, but that does not mean he was the creative genius behind it (and he is not even here anymore to help with Apple TV+, so this point is moot).
So, I will wait and see what Apple can deliver. Disney, on the other hand, has proved itself over the years, and is (to say the least) a solid content maker.
Um, BBC Earth has been pumping out high quality nature documentaries for years.
I did not know that. It is a bold move to enter a new business like this.
I have not tried Apple News+, as I live in Brazil. It seems good, but it also seems to have failed to make an impact so far.
It would be interesting if Apple bundles its video service for "free" with something people pay for now like icloud storage or apple music. The real killer would be if Apple could get the NFL and college football games. I would gladly pay for that bc everything else from all the other services are available at "alternative" locations.
I’ll subscribe to both. Considering Apple & Disney’s relationship (the fact that they had / have key people on each other’s board as Jobs was on the Disney board, both companies are very invested in each other), and the possibility that Disney will be bundled, it seems likely that Disney+ will be integrated to the TV app, and bundleable with TV+
Apple was early getting into streaming music in the 2000's. Since then they seem to be late getting into any of the content businesses. This is under both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. Some of the problems may be that media companies realized that content is king and they don't want to give another company control of something valuable, which the record companies obviously didn't realize when Apple made deals with them. Record companies were busy filling lawsuits against streaming companies and suing individuals whose IP address they found while investigating, instead of realizing that there was money to be made by offering legal streaming.
Tv and movie studios aren't making the same mistake, and haven't sold distribution rights for as long of a period or as exclusively as the music companies did. Deals are measured in a few years at most, and a lot of those deals are coming to an end, which is why so many studios are opening up streaming services.
No one is invincible including Apple, that is the point. And Netflix stock is priced higher than Apple at this point, so the Market has already spoken. I myself would never limit myself based on some sort of "loyalty" to a company, but okay for you. Netflix has already raised prices and I have accepted. I subscribe and buy based on what I want, not on a company name. I like Netflix and Disney content that is enough for me. I don't have a personal stake beyond that. And your comment confirms what I said earlier. It is an "Apple vs. everyone else" for you, and you prefer others to fail so that Apple can win.
Good question. The low price seems too good to be true. If it's full of advertising, it's too much of a pain.
In the press release they said that Disney + will not have ads. ESPN and Hulu, which can have ads depending on subscription level will stay that way for now.
Yep Apple doesn’t care if you sub to Disney through the atv app. It’s what they want you to do. Apple gets a percentage. Add hbo. Add Hulu. Apple’s real services business is taking part of that.
Since Hulu is part of it there’s no reason to think Disney plus won’t be.
And on top of that, I suppose music is a very different market. I can listen to the same songs that were part of my life over and over again. But I am not willing to rewatch every single movie or series over and over again. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that a song is something 3-7 minutes long, give or take, and I can listen on my headphones while walking, and a single episode from a series will run for some 45 minutes.
It is too good to be true, and you can be sure the price will go up. I think they want to grab as many subscribers as possible, as quickly as possible. Putting hurt on Netflix in the process is just a nice little bonus
Remember, they also dropped the price of Hulu’s ad-supported tier when Netflix announced their most recent price increase.To answer your question, no ads at $6.99. In fact no ad-supported tier at all.
Obviously — for most of us (who don't have limitless funds, nor desire, to spend on streaming channels), we will need to make choices as to what is the best value and has the most compelling series/movies for our entertainment.
I for one will never dump Netflix. UNLESS they were to ever accept advertising. Then it would be a fast F**K-off and goodbye.
I find Hulu to be very limited in terms of offerings that I like. I also DESPISE their software/interface. It is absolute crap. I am forced every single time I login to see their STUPID and uninteresting 'recommended' items. Which are never interesting or even remotely something I would watch. So, probably some kind of paid promotion. Ugh. Then the difficulty using their clunky, slow, and buggy interface (you can't even get the entire synopsis of a movie or episode...no matter what you do). I hate them. I only subscribe to watch some old series, and a handful of broadcast shows. Most of the Hulu-originals I haven't liked much.
Amazon Prime — I use Amazon a lot for shopping, so I purchase Prime each year for the included 2-day shipping. This membership pays for itself over the course of a year. So the video service is just a side-benefit.
The Disney+ service does sound interesting. And they at least have been rational as to what charge the market will bear for only 10 new series offered in year one of the service. I know they say "25"...but half of those will be 'reality' shows. What Hollywood has dressed up as 'unscripted' tv. Which is just another way to say ******, CHEAP to make, and nearly without all value other than as FILLER.
The DC Universe channel is interesting — but overpriced for what it is. One new series in year one. Year 2 and we have a second new series. And yet they are asking $7 or more per month. It's the same with CBS All Access — or let's call it the Star Trek Access channel. Too few series of interest. And they expect you to watch commercials! Not.
All that said, I prefer more choice. Especially when they look strong, like this Disney+. I was initially really unhappy about it since they resulted in the death of my favorite Marvel shows on Netflix. But their initial lineup does look pretty good. If not in year one, then certainly in year two.
I think the price is clever.
They must know, the MASS population will only, long term accept a certain amount of subscriptions before looking at what they use and cutting back to just keep and pay for the best bits.
I can see millions going for a Netflix and Disney combo, and that will satisfy the whole family.
Apple trying to get extra on top of this with a few old celebs with some shows, seems like a poor choice after the 1st few months.
They must know, the MASS population will only, long term accept a certain amount of subscriptions before looking at what they use and cutting back to just keep and pay for the best bits.
I can see millions going for a Netflix and Disney combo, and that will satisfy the whole family.
Apple trying to get extra on top of this with a few old celebs with some shows, seems like a poor choice after the 1st few months.
Disney has the upper hand vs. Apple on launch with their immense catalog - most of which will appeal to parents to sign up and you’ll have them long term.
Don’t see much from Apple that would entice young families. Right now Netflix gets more use for our young kids that’s my wife and I.
The future of TV viewing is going to be an interesting battle.
Don’t see much from Apple that would entice young families. Right now Netflix gets more use for our young kids that’s my wife and I.
The future of TV viewing is going to be an interesting battle.
][/doublepost]
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[/QUOTE]
That's not how business works. Companies don't have to be the dominant player to be competitive, and more importantly, to derive value/revenue/profit.
Apple doesn't sets out to be the dominant player because that's not their goal. Yes, in many areas Apple's products have been so good that they couldn't help but dominate an area, e.g., iTunes, Apple Watch, iPad, iMac, wireless, Apple News, etc., but their goal is to produce quality products that they WANT to produce. Hence, the most successful consumer product in the modern world has been the iPhone, but it has averaged around 15% of the smart phone market.
Finally, there is no true dominant player in video streaming and not likely to be one. The reason is that there are so many giant competitors, such as Amazon, Disney, Google, Apple, Hulu, Sony, etc., that can't realistically be acquired and are only growing their offerings and are not using their streaming services primarily even to make a profit on streaming itself (Notice I didn't include Netflix in this group. It's unconventional analysis, but I believe Netflix to be in a very precarious position. In contrast to the mega companies they are now competing against, Netflix is a one trick pony that is losing key content, e.g., Disney's, while facing huge cost increases. However, because of their competition, Netflix cannot raise prices sufficiently to keep up with those costs. Thus, I predict they will soon face a stock decline as Apple and Disney come on board, ultimately leading them to sell out to survive.
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[/QUOTE]
That's not how business works. Companies don't have to be the dominant player to be competitive, and more importantly, to derive value/revenue/profit.
Apple doesn't sets out to be the dominant player because that's not their goal. Yes, in many areas Apple's products have been so good that they couldn't help but dominate an area, e.g., iTunes, Apple Watch, iPad, iMac, wireless, Apple News, etc., but their goal is to produce quality products that they WANT to produce. Hence, the most successful consumer product in the modern world has been the iPhone, but it has averaged around 15% of the smart phone market.
Finally, there is no true dominant player in video streaming and not likely to be one. The reason is that there are so many giant competitors, such as Amazon, Disney, Google, Apple, Hulu, Sony, etc., that can't realistically be acquired and are only growing their offerings and are not using their streaming services primarily even to make a profit on streaming itself (Notice I didn't include Netflix in this group. It's unconventional analysis, but I believe Netflix to be in a very precarious position. In contrast to the mega companies they are now competing against, Netflix is a one trick pony that is losing key content, e.g., Disney's, while facing huge cost increases. However, because of their competition, Netflix cannot raise prices sufficiently to keep up with those costs. Thus, I predict they will soon face a stock decline as Apple and Disney come on board, ultimately leading them to sell out to survive.
Network series are cyclical. 70s, abc was king. 80s, cbs was king. 90s, nbc could do no wrong. 2000 went back to cbs, then abc, even the discovery channel and Nickelodeon saw a huge bump in viewers, now Netflix is the so called king. Eventually they’ll peak and another network or streaming service will takes its place, and you’ll see YouTube videos trying to explain “what killed Netflix?” Similar to the “what killed Nickelodeon?” “What killed nbc.” “What killed spongebob?” “What killed the simpsons?” ... etc.
One thing is almost certain, you won’t remain king of the entertainment mountain for long.
One thing is almost certain, you won’t remain king of the entertainment mountain for long.
Given that you will have to make financial choices for your entertainment services, that’s a pretty strong statement about Netflix. Are you basing that on the fact that you’re a fan of Netflix original programming? If so, even if that’s currently true, it doesn’t mean it will be 5 years from now, much less forever (see Joe h post above). And Netflix will lose most of its added value, licensed content during that time as well as other services like Disney+ launch and pull back their catalogues.
In my case, I’ve been questioning the value of Netflix to me over the last year. Many of the shows I signed up to Netflix for originally are ending, and I haven’t seen many new shows that I’m interested in. STRANGER THINGS is about the only show I’m interested in seeing, but it’s not worth maintaining an annual subscription for when the new episodes arrive. I’m fast moving toward canceling my Netflix subscription until there’s something I want to see, and then signing up for a month to binge it, then cancel again. That’s exactly what I do for CBSAA — I joined through my Amazon subscription for DISCOVERY in January, and plan to cancel this month after the finale. If I had more patience, I would have waited and joined only for the month of April and bindged the whole series in a month.
Joining to binge, then canceling when I’m done probably wouldn’t work for my mom, but for those of us who came of age during the rise of the internet, then this is pretty simple to do.
It’s hard for me to imagine any streaming service I wouldn’t ever give up right now. Amazon Prime Video actually is the best value for me, because it is added value to my Prime account, which I will maintain forever as long as it continues to offer free 2-day shipping, so I guess I’ll always have Prime Video so long as that remains a perk.
As for the rest, I can only imagine they will rise and fall in my estimation based on their original content and overall value at any given time. Fortunately I can add and drop with the click of a button rather than sitting on a phone call with a cable TV customer service rep, giving them one last shot at keeping me as a customer, and making me jump through hoops to disconnect, not to mention waiting for 6 hours for the cable guy to show up and connect me.