Disney+ Password Sharing Crackdown to Start in June

[turbineseaplane]

I wonder if subscription video services are flagging a bit
I'm personally "all out" on "all of them"

Just not playing the game.
I'll do something else with my free time

 

[krspkbl]

It worked for Netflix so of course they will copy it.

That's not the problem though. Disney+ just straight up sucks. They need better content

 

[Unami]

Still works with Netflix as long as you're in the same town. Hope Disney does that as well or it's back to pirating for me.

 

[Unami]

I could be wrong but seems like when D+ first came out they didn't care about you sharing your account. You had 5 profiles to do as you pleased.

It's called ensh****fication.

They also had quite a few disappointments...

• Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) @ $383,963,057 worldwide
• Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023) @ $476,071,180 worldwide
• The Marvels (2023) @ $206,112,932 worldwide
• Lightyear (2022) @ $226,425,420 worldwide
• Wish (2023) @ $254,582,609 worldwide
• Encanto (2021) @ $256,786,742 worldwide

Disappointments those might be, but at least Dial and Antman still turned a profit. I was pretty disappointed by Dial though. Shooting most action sequences in medium close-ups is pretty stupid.

 

[chevman]

If you want to share the account with your kid(s) away for college, create a separate email address, switch your Disney and Netflix accounts to use this email, and share the email access with your family members. The next time your kid tries to use Disney Bundle in college dorm, Disney will send a verification code to this shared email address.

Yeah this is what we and most folks I know do. Have a shared family email account for all these types of subscriptions and a shared (free) Google voice number for the cases where you need SMS two factor code for verification.

 

[Aiii83]

It's called ensh****fication.



Disappointments those might be, but at least Dial and Antman still turned a profit. I was pretty disappointed by Dial though. Shooting most action sequences in medium close-ups is pretty stupid.

No they didn’t. At least Indy didn’t. It barely made it production cost back, but it definitely didn’t make it’s production + marketing cost back. Ant-Man might have broke even, but barely if so.

 

[Simon89]

Happy I’m only paying £33 a year for Disney+, couldn’t imagine dropping full price as it’s another average at best streaming platform

 

[Realityck]

It worked for Netflix so of course they will copy it.

That's not the problem though. Disney+ just straight up sucks. They need better content

Disney Plus was always hampered after the 21st Century acquisition that prevented Star from being replicated in the USA where Hulu still existed because of Comcast 1/3 ownership. Now that has passed and Disney is proceeding to transcode the older Hulu content format to the newer Disney Plus content format. It's going to take a lot of time.

Starting Wednesday (March 27), the full Hulu on Disney+ experience is rolling out in the U.S. That means Hulu titles will be integrated into personalized content recommendations, sets and collections on Disney+. Under the previous “beta” integration, which launched last December, Hulu content was presented in a separate hub on Disney+.

Regarding the amount of stuff that needs to be converted from old format to new format:

Hulu’s 70,000-plus TV episodes and movies include licensed content like “Grey’s Anatomy” and original and exclusive programming such as “Shōgun,” “Only Murders in the Building,” “Poor Things” and “The Bear.” Those titles will be featured directly in the Disney+ app alongside shows and films from Marvel, Star Wars, Walt Disney Studios, Pixar and more.

The combined service when it gets fully moved should be very extensive compared to just the current Disney Plus service. But its does add up to $19.99 a month for ad-free for the pairing, otherwise its $9.99 w/ads for the pairing. The w/ads deal is cheap enough for most consumers IMHO for the states. (only $2 more then just Disney +)

for more info

So What Is and Isn’t Available from Hulu on the Merged Disney+ App?

The Hulu tile on the newly merged Disney+ app has 70,000 licensed and original titles, but not shows like 'Modern Family' and 'Love Island.'

www.indiewire.com

 

[Born Again]

That and going to the movies is expensive anymore

I would rather wait and watch on my nice home theater for a fraction of the price

With large tv's being affordable these days, the appeal to the theater just isn't there for me

Have you not seen dune 2? Amazing in imax

 

[wazgilbert]

The division of content across so many streaming services means that I’m just not participating in that rip off at all, because of Sky’s inclusion of Netflix, that’s the only reason I have that anymore, but Apple TV, Paramount, Disney+, and and and to follow shows? Get lost. I'll be sailing towards whatever I can’t follow on the channels I do have.

 

[pianophile]

"In June, we'll be launching our first real foray into password sharing," said Iger. "Just a few countries and a few markets, but then it will grow significantly with a full rollout in September."

I recently purchased a set of Mandalorian S1-3 DVDs on eBay for the price of two months of Disney+. No need to subscribe!

 

[thewill586]

If my kids are at college and want to watch Netflix, Max or Disney+, they shouldn't have to have their own accounts. Figure out a way to handle that situation!

Kids should be focused on studying, not watching Netflix. Lol

 

[voodoo111]

I personally don't believe in the concept of 'Super Hero Fatigue'. Give audiences a good movie, a great story without having the need to insert some sort of agenda or subliminal messaging and I believe people will watch it. Look at Godzilla Minus One, Top Gun: Maverick, Sound Of Freedom. Each movie destroyed it at the box office.
As for some of the movies mentioned.. Dial Of Destiny, Guardians etc.. I don't understand why people/journalists reporting on movies don't take into consideration marketing. Let's take Indy 5 as an example (and note, I am using rough/ballpark figures here):
1. Movie Budget: $250 million
2. Marketing: $150 million
3. Reshoots: ? (let's just say for the sake of the exercise, there were none and it cost $0)
4. Total: $400 million dollars.

Disney does not (and not only Disney, but every movie company) take all the revenue from the theatres. In fact, it roughly equivalates to be 50% (it's actually slightly less but let's call it 50% and in China, it's even less).
Using Indy as an example, if it made $500 million worldwide, only $250 million goes to Disney (50% to theatre owners, 50% to Disney). But wait, it cost them $400 million to make/promote. Therefore, Disney lost $150 million on making Indy 5.
On a $400 million total cost of a movie, just to break even, the movie worldwide needs a return of $800 million dollars. For said company to say then say that they made a blockbuster of a movie, one could make the point that it would need to break more than $1 billion dollars worldwide.

If we break it down like that, again, I think one could ask the question of Disney (or anyone else for that matter) and argue out of all the movies, TV shows (Star Wars, Marvel, Indy etc) Disney has lost money so so much more money than it made. You could say that their last half dozen to a dozen movie/TV projects all lost huge amounts of money. And I personally believe, that's why no one cares about D+ and why D+ has never turned a profit.

PS Just on personal side note: Watch how now that Hulu is part of D+, they will use the profits of Hulu and say D+ is now profitable, which in my eyes, is fudging the figures. And I don't think Avatar 2 counts personally. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Disney owns 20th Century. Disney had no involvement in Avatar 2, I don't think James Cameron would allow anyone to meddle with it and yet Disney will claim it as theirs.

 

[Abazigal]

Or they could stop releasing **** with ridiculous budgets because they were able to get away with it during Covid. *Looks at you secret invasion.*

The problem is that the whole selling point of Disney+ was a steady diet of Marvel and Star Wars content, which by their very nature, is expensive to make because of all the props, actors and CGI. I am curious to hear about what a "budget" Marvel or Star Wars tv series would look like? Just go all-in on animation, like what they are doing with the "what if" series?

I imagine an animated version of secret invasion would have made it possible for say, an appearance by the avengers in the final episode and not make the boss battle look like a joke because you don't need to pay any of the OG actors to show up. Heck, this probably would have allowed War Machine to suit up once in a while even!

I am also hearing nice things about the recent X-men cartoon reboot, but at this point, I am just too burned out by Disney to contemplate even torrenting it. Maybe I will eventually go back to re-subscribing for a moth or so just to catch up on all the missed content, but at this point, YouTube premium and my subscription-based podcasts (MacStories and Stratechery) are enough to fill up my time.

 

[WestCoastCommodore]

Disney+ barely releases originals anymore and hardly any of the classics and many of the ones that are have been edited in some kind of way. Disney really has nothing to offer to be cracking down on sharing

So doesn't sound like you'll be missing anything when the crackdown comes, then.

 

[ZipZilla]

is it just me, or is Disney+ not worth the money? I hardly ever watch it

 

[richpjr]

If I didn't get Disney/ESPN/Hulu for free with my Verizon wireless plan I certainly wouldn't be paying them a penny. Getting harder and harder to find anything watchable with the trash they have been putting out recently.

 

[vakarpochui]

If I didn't get Disney/ESPN/Hulu for free with my Verizon wireless plan I certainly wouldn't be paying them a penny. Getting harder and harder to find anything watchable with the trash they have been putting out recently.

You are paying them.

 

[SoldOnApple]

It’s just too expensive for 4K steaming service without sharing. It’s back to cable prices which were too expensive too.

 

[Abazigal]

It’s just too expensive for 4K steaming service without sharing. It’s back to cable prices which were too expensive too.

Streaming is still preferable to cable due to the ability to do away with ads and watch shows at a timing of your choice. But I expect prices to continue to rise over the next few years.

 

[SoldOnApple]

Streaming is still preferable to cable due to the ability to do away with ads and watch shows at a timing of your choice. But I expect prices to continue to rise over the next few years.

I have to wonder if the streaming services are fine with bleeding some customers away to piracy by raising prices, if it makes them more money in the long run. Maybe there should be perks to being a paying customer, like being able to vote on the direction your favourite shows will go in future seasons, and exclusive live streams with the creators of the show where paying customers can chat and vote on questions to ask them or something.

 

[voodoo111]

I have to wonder if the streaming services are fine with bleeding some customers away to piracy by raising prices, if it makes them more money in the long run. Maybe there should be perks to being a paying customer, like being able to vote on the direction your favourite shows will go in future seasons, and exclusive live streams with the creators of the show where paying customers can chat and vote on questions to ask them or something.

I would dare to maybe even take it even a step further. I would be very reluctant to believe that any streaming service, any at all bar Netflix, has turned a profit. I personally believe it's too late. For all of them. They are all throwing millions into something that just isn't working, and putting up prices to cover their loses is driving existing customers away. Whilst the movie companies have been around for a long time and certainly longer than Netflix has been around, they for some unknown reason either don't want to or can't put some of their older material on streaming. And any new content that is out is just not enticing for new subscribers. I think it would be more profitable for them to go back to DVD/Blu-Ray/4K and licence everything else to Netflix. I think they would rake in the money. I for one, would love watching the special features, seeing what goes into a movie, all the special effects, creature costumes, prop designs etc - and that's what you got with hard copies. I miss that

 

[Abazigal]

I have to wonder if the streaming services are fine with bleeding some customers away to piracy by raising prices, if it makes them more money in the long run. Maybe there should be perks to being a paying customer, like being able to vote on the direction your favourite shows will go in future seasons, and exclusive live streams with the creators of the show where paying customers can chat and vote on questions to ask them or something.

If I were to look at things strictly from a business profit-maximising perspective, I would be fine with losing some customers in the process of increasing prices so long as I experience greater profits at the end of each month.

Even temporarily subscribing for a month to catch up on older shows may not work in the future if the streaming companies catch on and implement countermeasures (eg: the first month costs more to discourage churn).

I am not so sure about giving Netflix (I am going to use this term to encapsulate all video streaming companies) social media features like the ability to vote on a show. But I suspect that these companies are taking notes and have their own internal metrics; they just might not result in the outcomes we hope.

But as is the case with Spotify, this seems to speak more about the viability of video streaming as a sustainable business model. There are just too many read flags involved.

 

[vakarpochui]

Streaming is still preferable to cable due to the ability to do away with ads and watch shows at a timing of your choice. But I expect prices to continue to rise over the next few years.

For how long? Up till now it looks like story of cable is unfolding in front of your eyes.

 

[voodoo111]

For how long? Up till now it looks like story of cable is unfolding in front of your eyes.

All valid points.. but I think the picture is way bigger.
Maybe look at it from this angle.. While I certainly agree there is something to be said with watching content from the comfort of your lounge room chair, streaming has it all wrong. Let's take movies as an example.
I think the movie companies are pushing streaming only so you don't own it. Think about it. Disney for one has discontinued physical media (at least in Australia they have). The idea is: "You can't own it, but you still can watch our movie, our TV show.. if you pay me $19.99 a month". If you have the Blu-Ray at $29.99 then it's yours to watch whenever you like for a lifetime, you can pass it family and friends and pass it on to possibly your next generation. Hence however, no reoccurring revenue for said movie company. And sure, some people are ok with that and that is fine. Until someone decides that Citizen Kane and say 200 other movies are no longer being watched by enough people and they need to free up storage because storage capacity is not infinite. But adding more storage costs money.. well, then it's just easier to remove a whole bunch of content and no longer have it available. It's already happening with music services which is why I believe physical media will always be king.