Disney Offers First Look at Upcoming Disney+ App, Launching in November for $6.99 Per Month [Update: Will Be Available on Apple Devices]

[ipponrg]

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.

Apple+ won’t have much effect on the other streaming providers. I say this with a strong conviction because we are all already skeptical of their offerings. What is their play here if they are not trying to compete? If it’s just to add value to the Apple ecosystem, that’s fine. That doesn’t have much impact to the other streaming services.
[doublepost=1555264434][/doublepost]

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.,

I’m not sure I agree with this. iTunes software is anything but great. The iTunes Store arguably is so great that they finally decided to split it because their knowledge management was so atrocious. Watch and maybe iPad I’ll give you that. Both are still rather niche. The iMac is subjectively ok but we all know how many feel about it right now. Apple news? It seems the internet and anecdotally various social circles have very mixed opinions.

I don’t believe nor buy into the opinion that Apple’s products have been that good where they dominate. The only thing I see even remotely mentioned in other non Apple sites/forums is maybe the watch. Everything else is pretty much not talked about.
[doublepost=1555264513][/doublepost]

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.

If Apple wants to be another Crackle, then please tell me they are still competitive

 

[MisterSavage]

I’m not sure I agree with this. iTunes software is anything but great. The iTunes Store arguably is so great that they finally decided to split it because their knowledge management was so atrocious. Watch and maybe iPad I’ll give you that. Both are still rather niche. The iMac is subjectively ok but we all know how many feel about it right now. Apple news? It seems the internet and anecdotally various social circles have very mixed opinions.

Yeah I'm in love with Apple hardware but some of the their software is not great. The iTunes interface makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes.

 

[EdT]

I’m not sure I agree with this. iTunes software is anything but great. The iTunes Store arguably is so great that they finally decided to split it because their knowledge management was so atrocious. Watch and maybe iPad I’ll give you that. Both are still rather niche. The iMac is subjectively ok but we all know how many feel about it right now. Apple news? It seems the internet and anecdotally various social circles have very mixed opinions.

I don’t believe nor buy into the opinion that Apple’s products have been that good where they dominate. The only thing I see even remotely mentioned in other non Apple sites/forums is maybe the watch. Everything else is pretty much not talked about.

When iTunes came out it was revolutionary. Not because of features or sound quality but because you could download music legally and the record companies weren't going to sue you. Before that the music companies were trying to shut down digital downloaded music. Napster was probably the biggest in the late 1990's/early 2000's and it took them a while but the music industry did eventually shut them down.

iTunes was legal, had a large (for the time) selection and wasn't likely to disappear in a year or two.

 

[truthertech]

Apple+ won’t have much effect on the other streaming providers. I say this with a strong conviction because we are all already skeptical of their offerings. What is their play here if they are not trying to compete? If it’s just to add value to the Apple ecosystem, that’s fine. That doesn’t have much impact to the other streaming services.

No one is suggesting that Apple isn't trying to compete. They have no choice; it's an extremely competitive market. The point is that they aren't trying to, and don't need to DOMINATE that market.

And unless you think people have unlimited funds and are willing to sign up for an unlimited streaming services there will be an impact on the other streaming services. With well over a BILLION devices and close to that many customers around the planet, Apple is a going to impact others, and the impact will only be an increasing one.

That's why Netflix is particularly worried. They must have choked when they heard that Apple is rolling out Apple TV to over a 100 countries at launch. They made about $800 million in total profit last year. If Netflix were to lose just 4% of its month subscribers (about 5 million) to Apple and/or Disney, Netflix would have all its profits wiped out. That's why its stock is dropping. This is also why it is the only one not participating with the Apple TV app. They are stocking up on the antacids before May when their latest price increases go out to customers. Ouch!


[doublepost=1555266891][/doublepost]I’m not sure I agree with this. iTunes software is anything but great. The iTunes Store arguably is so great that they finally decided to split it because their knowledge management was so atrocious. Watch and maybe iPad I’ll give you that. Both are still rather niche. The iMac is subjectively ok but we all know how many feel about it right now. Apple news? It seems the internet and anecdotally various social circles have very mixed opinions.

I don’t believe nor buy into the opinion that Apple’s products have been that good where they dominate. The only thing I see even remotely mentioned in other non Apple sites/forums is maybe the watch. Everything else is pretty much not talked about.
[doublepost=1555264513][/doublepost]

You are missing the point. We aren't debating opinions about the quality of any of their offerings. What you're dealing with are the facts about Apple's success. Fact- iTunes became the largest music store in the entire world and changed the way music was sold. Fact - Apple Watch is now the top selling watch, digital or not, in the entire world. Regarding the smart watch market, Apple Watch is so dominant that it is the market. No one comes close. Fact- Other than throwaways, iPad owns the market for tablets, and the Surface and Chrome pale in comparison. Fact- Apple News is now the largest news site in the entire world with about 100 Million active monthly users. Fact- Apple is the largest seller of wireless headsets in the entire world and AirPods a runaway success.

I could go on, but just wanted to give you some examples of how Apple has tended to dominate most markets it has entered, but again Apple isn't setting out to dominate the TV streaming market, but will still have an impact.

 

[ipponrg]

No one is suggesting that Apple isn't trying to compete. They have no choice; it's an extremely competitive market. The point is that they aren't trying to, and don't need to DOMINATE that market.

Apple has a choice. They can simply not market themselves as a competitor to said services. If they did not market it as such, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Remember when they initially marketed the HomePod as a speaker first with voice assistant a distant second? Then they switched it around and touted Siri as a big reason for buying the HomePod.

The public acknowledges the latter and hence why it's compared to the smart speaker market and not to the speaker market.

And unless you think people have unlimited funds and are willing to sign up for an unlimited streaming services there will be an impact on the other streaming services. With well over a BILLION devices and close to that many customers around the planet, Apple is a going to impact others, and the impact will only be an increasing one.

A billion devices, but really how many of people/families out there own multiple devices?

That's why Netflix is particularly worried. They must have choked when they heard that Apple is rolling out Apple TV to over a 100 countries at launch. They made about $800 million in total profit last year. If Netflix were to lose just 4% of its month subscribers (about 5 million) to Apple and/or Disney, Netflix would have all its profits wiped out. That's why its stock is dropping. This is also why it is the only one not participating with the Apple TV app. They are stocking up on the antacids before May when their latest price increases go out to customers. Ouch!

Netflix is more worried about Disney+ than Apple+. Please, let's not joke here, it's not even funny. Disney is targeting ubiquity, and so is Netflix. Apple recently has shown signs that their current ecosystem is not sufficient for ubiquity. They now have to negotiate with SmartTV manufacturers for more accessibility. Time will tell if this play will affect users. Globally, I feel that people associate Netflix/Disney to content and Apple to phones (and maybe other devices).

You are missing the point. We aren't debating opinions about the quality of any of their offerings. What you're dealing with are the facts about Apple's success.
Fact- iTunes became the largest music store in the entire world and changed the way music was sold.
Fact - Apple Watch is now the top selling watch, digital or not, in the entire world. Regarding the smart watch market, Apple Watch is so dominant that it is the market. No one comes close.
Fact- Other than throwaways, iPad owns the market for tablets, and the Surface and Chrome pale in comparison.
Fact- Apple News is now the largest news site in the entire world with about 100 Million active monthly users.
Fact- Apple is the largest seller of wireless headsets in the entire world and AirPods a runaway success.

I could go on, but just wanted to give you some examples of how Apple has tended to dominate most markets it has entered, but again Apple isn't setting out to dominate the TV streaming market, but will still have an impact.

I suppose dominating niche markets means a lot in your eyes.

What you forget is that streaming video is not a niche market. Unlike iTunes, Apple is really late to this game. Netflix has more to worry about from the ATT/HBO/Warner play than Apple.

 

[Abazigal]

Since so many people here are decrying Apple video, I guess that’s the best evidence that this will be fairly successful then, going by past track records.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2018/10/10/netflix-isnt-invincible

 

[truthertech]

Apple has a choice. They can simply not market themselves as a competitor to said services. If they did not market it as such, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Remember when they initially marketed the HomePod as a speaker first with voice assistant a distant second? Then they switched it around and touted Siri as a big reason for buying the HomePod.

The public acknowledges the latter and hence why it's compared to the smart speaker market and not to the speaker market.



A billion devices, but really how many of people/families out there own multiple devices?



Netflix is more worried about Disney+ than Apple+. Please, let's not joke here, it's not even funny. Disney is targeting ubiquity, and so is Netflix. Apple recently has shown signs that their current ecosystem is not sufficient for ubiquity. They now have to negotiate with SmartTV manufacturers for more accessibility. Time will tell if this play will affect users. Globally, I feel that people associate Netflix/Disney to content and Apple to phones (and maybe other devices).



I suppose dominating niche markets means a lot in your eyes.

What you forget is that streaming video is not a niche market. Unlike iTunes, Apple is really late to this game. Netflix has more to worry about from the ATT/HBO/Warner play than Apple.

OK, you're running on pure guesses and emotion, not facts. You are also arguing with yourself about points no one is making. I never said that Apple's streaming service will be larger than Netflix or Disney. My point is that they don't have to dominate to be a success.

Here's some more facts for you to stew over, but then my quick break is over, and I have to get back to finishing my taxes.

• When you suggest Apple doesn't have "ubiquity" you're mistaken. Apple's streaming service will be in 100 countries from the get go. Disney isn't even rolling out beyond the US at first. Apple's service will be on more devices around the world, in more languages, than anyone else. There are now over 1.4 BILLION active Apple devices that will have Apple's TV App on them. That's how Apple News came out of nowhere to be the largest news app in the world with 100 MILLION active users. See how that works? Every major TV manufacturer in the world has stepped up to add the App to their TV. The largest streaming device makers like Roku have added it. It's about as ubiquitous as one can imagine. It's why Disney has said they are going to be part of Apple TV. See why that model works?

• From a revenue and profit point of view, Apple has dominated both "niche" and large markets. Take cell phones, last year a $522 billion dollar market, dwarfing that of video streaming at $24 Billion. In the hugely valuable smart phone market Apple's share of the profits stays consistently at 90% of the ENTIRE industry. What share will Apple take from video streaming? Too soon to tell, but they are already taking billions from iTunes and their cut of other services, and when they roll out the new Apple TV with channels, they will take in billions more without having to make a dime off of their own original content. That's called WINNING. It enables Apple to do so many things, including offering their content for free as part of a bundle, or to sell more devices, etc., etc. That's how Apple TV is a likely winner no matter which strategy Apple chooses.

• For the record, you need to go back and research about Homepod. This is a great example of what you are missing about streaming. Apple didn't set out to dominate the smart speaker market as they have no interest in competing with cheap Alexa speakers for the same reason they don't need or want to sell the most smart phones and market a cheap phone to compete with the Android junk on the low end. BTW, you also have it completely backwards. Apple has never sold it as a Siri focused speaker. Indeed, they've gone out of their way to focus on its fantastic audio quality to sell to customers wanting a premium experience, and Apple is content to let Google and Amazon lose money as they compete for market share with cheap speakers.

 

[ipponrg]

I never said that Apple's streaming service will be larger than Netflix or Disney. My point is that they don't have to dominate to be a success.

They need to dominate (not necessarily #1, but be a 1st tier) to be a success, or they will burn cash making content that few are consuming. That is how it works in the video streaming industry. You don’t spend a ton of money pumping into content to NOT try to do well. Your content costs will burn your ROI and through your cash pile. The large cash stockpile that you and several Apple fanatics speak highly about will slowly burn away.

From a revenue and profit point of view, Apple has dominated both "niche" and large markets.

AppleTV software and hardware hasn't been the success that Apple was hoping for hence the need for them to bend over to get onto SmartTV platforms and Roku. Those platforms really have nothing to lose to support Apple.

Apple didn't set out to dominate the smart speaker market as they have no interest in competing with cheap Alexa speakers for the same reason they don't need or want to sell the most smart phones and market a cheap phone to compete with the Android junk on the low end... Apple has never sold it as a Siri focused speaker.

You're right Apple hasn't sold it as a Siri focused speaker. But what about one of the first commercials where the protagonist enters into the room and says "Hey Siri"? Do you think the public will think Siri is not a main draw for this speaker? It seems disconnected between what Apple says something is vs what the general public thinks it is.

I know of the facts that you keep mentioning. But I like to look at the facts and analyze ahead. I work in the video industry, and very few talk about Apple being a formidable competitor here.

 

[cardfan]

Apple isn’t looking to bleed themselves dry making content. They merely want a slice of the pie...everyone but Netflix’s pie. Mainly 30 percent of what you pay hbo, Hulu, and now Disney plus. And if you view apples content worthy enough to use their atv app and keep using it then that’s the goal.

What Apple has, and Disney and others don’t is 1.4 billion iTunes accounts and the ability to take a percentage of digital goods sold by any app.

Is this a slam dunk? I’ve already said I hate the atv app. This isn’t about customer experience but trying to leverage you. It’s a bloated atv app nagging you to subscribe to channels which I have no interest doing. Apple doesn’t care what video you sub to as long as you do it via atv app and they can take their slice. Many others seem to prefer an all in one app.

Plus Netflix left that iTunes universe. This hurts Apple as Netflix brought Apple millions in revenue. This model is also being litigated by Spotify. I’d say being included in atv app means agreeing to iTunes billing. It remains to be seen if Netflix made the right move or if others follow their lead.

 

[newwavedave]

Damn you Disney teasing with Boba Fett - the one character Star Wars fans have been clamouring for more stories!

I don’t know how anyone will be able to keep up with all these streaming services. This is not saving any money vs. cable!

Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but it's not Boba Fett...

 

[FriendlyMackle]

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.

I'm not saying I would never cancel my Netflix subscription. Just that as things stand in terms of their current and upcoming programming (which I look at IMDB, Hollywood Reporter, TVLine and others for intel on upcoming/renewals/development news), there is plenty which I find appealing. Most of the Netflix 'originals' have been pretty good in my estimation. But, I watch a lot of foreign content, German, French, Spanish, Turkish, Danish, Swedish...so that has resulted in a very large variety of new shows from which I can choose. I'm already at the point where there is almost too much to watch (not all of my entertainment is tv!). So, I have some favorite shows, and I look to see what is upcoming and look forward to new seasons and new series.

As to subscribing and unsubscribing periodically, yes, that makes sense if you need to save the money. I don't watch broadcast or 'cable' (traditional) tv at all. The only source for video on my screens is streaming services. So, it is worth it to me to spend $12.99 per month on Netflix to always have it available. I suppose in the future if there were to be a great reduction in quality series of interest to me, then I would consider periodically unsubscribing. But, I am fine spending $156 per year on Netflix. That is close to what one month of cable tv used to cost me.

I have considered periodic Hulu cancelllation/renewal and binging series I like, just as you have described. But, as I just can't manage to watch everything I like across all services in a given month, that just isn't realistic for me. Now that Disney has controlling interest in Hulu, I actually expect their service to improve. Hulu is likely to host content considered too 'adult' for Disney+. Which will be good news for Hulu.

 

[skaertus]

Apple isn’t looking to bleed themselves dry making content. They merely want a slice of the pie...everyone but Netflix’s pie. Mainly 30 percent of what you pay hbo, Hulu, and now Disney plus. And if you view apples content worthy enough to use their atv app and keep using it then that’s the goal.

What Apple has, and Disney and others don’t is 1.4 billion iTunes accounts and the ability to take a percentage of digital goods sold by any app.

Is this a slam dunk? I’ve already said I hate the atv app. This isn’t about customer experience but trying to leverage you. It’s a bloated atv app nagging you to subscribe to channels which I have no interest doing. Apple doesn’t care what video you sub to as long as you do it via atv app and they can take their slice. Many others seem to prefer an all in one app.

Plus Netflix left that iTunes universe. This hurts Apple as Netflix brought Apple millions in revenue. This model is also being litigated by Spotify. I’d say being included in atv app means agreeing to iTunes billing. It remains to be seen if Netflix made the right move or if others follow their lead.

This makes sense. Apple is not really a contender. It is sad that Apple is taking this approach.

At the presentation, Tim Cook just mentioned generic things like “these great storytellers” and “the great stories they are going to tell”. Apple’s approach seems to be hiring a lot of high profile people and just let them do their jobs, without even being interested in what they are producing. Tim Cook at least does not seem to be a bit interested (and I wonder if he is interested in anything but the supply chain).

Disney, on the other hand, is all about the content. The spotlight is not on the big names, but on the content: Marvel, Disney classics, Star Wars, The Simpsons. Tight control over content. Whole different story.

If Apple is trying to be a contender, it may fail miserably, unless it starts taking real interest in what it is producing, instead of just spending piles of money. Now, if all Apple wants is to put up a few shows just to attract other subscription services, then maybe the strategy works out.

 

[0388631]

Disney's legal counsel has advised the media giant to ignore “Daredevil,” “Jessica Jones,” “The Punisher,” “Luke Cage,” and “Iron Fist," properties until after 2020 to avoid any breach in contract with Netflix.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/disney-new-daredevil-jessica-jones-series-delay-1202127577/

 

[MisterSavage]

Shut up and take my money!

 

[charlituna]

Shut up and take my money!

Apparently the folks at D23 get it at half price if they prepaid for 3 years. And it seems pretty much every attendee has

On and have you seen this
https://twitter.com/_elvishpresley_/status/1165317834093801472?s=21

 

[skitidetdu]

This makes sense. Apple is not really a contender. It is sad that Apple is taking this approach.

At the presentation, Tim Cook just mentioned generic things like “these great storytellers” and “the great stories they are going to tell”. Apple’s approach seems to be hiring a lot of high profile people and just let them do their jobs, without even being interested in what they are producing. Tim Cook at least does not seem to be a bit interested (and I wonder if he is interested in anything but the supply chain)..

Got me to think of the what SJ said:

“It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to to , We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”

― Steve Jobs

 

[skaertus]

Disney's legal counsel has advised the media giant to ignore “Daredevil,” “Jessica Jones,” “The Punisher,” “Luke Cage,” and “Iron Fist," properties until after 2020 to avoid any breach in contract with Netflix.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/04/disney-new-daredevil-jessica-jones-series-delay-1202127577/

Yes, Disney cannot do this right now. Kevin Feige himself seems to have confirmed this: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/0...-daredevil-luke-cage-jessica-jones-iron-fist/.

There is another factor in addition to this. The Netflix shows (as well as the ABC shows) are produced by Marvel TV, headed by Jeph Loeb, and not by Marvel Studios (which makes the movies). Marvel Studios is run by Kevin Feige, and there seems to be a feud between him and Jeph Loeb (https://screenrant.com/agents-of-shield-carter-season-2-3-marvel-tv-feud/).

This feud may be one the reasons why there has not been really any crossover between the films and the series so far. It is always possible that Feige and Loeb settle their issues and cooperate, but the agreement with Netflix makes it even more complex in the future.

The new series, which will be on Disney+, are all produced by Marvel Studios, so these ones are an integral part of the MCU (while the Marvel TV series acknowledged and took into consideration everything that happened in the movies, but, for the movies, the TV series were non-existent).

Let’s see what happens in the future. I am curious to see how Disney will handle the loose ends, which were basically created by legal complications which are current or existed at some point (such as Spider-Man, X-Men and the Defenders).

 

[skaertus]

Got me to think of the what SJ said:

“It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to to , We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”

― Steve Jobs

You mean, these great storytellers should know what to do, and then Apple should just let them do it? Tim Cook just does not sound very interested in the content.

But wouldn’t be customers interested in knowing some of the content that they may end up watching to?

 

[skitidetdu]

You mean, these great storytellers should know what to do, and then Apple should just let them do it? Tim Cook just does not sound very interested in the content.

But wouldn’t be customers interested in knowing some of the content that they may end up watching to?

I'm sure Spielberg, Abrams and the rest has been pitching ideas for some executive as they would do in Hollywood anyway. Apple is after all paying for it.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I'm sure Spielberg, Abrams and the rest has been pitching ideas for some executive as they would do in Hollywood anyway. Apple is after all paying for it.

That would be former Sony Pictures Television presidents Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht. At Sony since 2005, they created programs for Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and others. Their programs include Better Call Saul, The Blacklist, Bloodline, Breaking Bad, The Crown, Damages, The Goldbergs, Justified, Preacher, Rescue Me, The Shield, Sneaky Pete and many more. Apple hired them a couple years ago.

Also involved in development is former president and general manager of WGN America and Tribune Studios Matt Cherniss. No doubt others, too.

 

[skaertus]

I'm sure Spielberg, Abrams and the rest has been pitching ideas for some executive as they would do in Hollywood anyway. Apple is after all paying for it.

I suppose you are right. Apple probably is hearing them, but we just do not know exactly what is going on.

Would it really make a difference, though? It seems to me that Hollywood is now more about mega-buck franchises than talented individuals.

Spielberg was a synonym of blockbuster a few decades ago. Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park. Now he is not really directing any blockbuster and we can debate whether the movies he is into are really memorable. Yes, he is serving as executive producer of huge Jurassic World and Transformer movies, but those are already well-established franchises, and the Spielberg name is no longer the selling point in any of them.

As for Abrams, he may be a great director. But his involvement in Star Wars, Star Trek and Mission Impossible movies may have made them better, but they were already huge franchises on their own. They can survive without Abrams (as long as they do not screw up so much). The Abrams projects that did not involve those big names failed to get as much interest.

I mean, these guys are great, and so are many other in Hollywood. But what is really creating interest are the huge franchises that suck all the air in the movie business. Associating a little-known name with the Marvel Cinematic Universe may end up being more profitable than putting Spielberg as the director of the movie.

And Disney is delivering on the franchises. Its Disney+ service is full of new exclusive series. It is selling as a necessary companion to the MCU movies, and it has other exclusive content as well. I do not see Apple nurturing this same kind of feeling in its TV+ line-up.