No, they’re *essentially* making *subscribers* actually pay.
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 Raising Price of Disney+ Subscription to $10.99 and Launching $7.99 Ad-Supported Tier
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I paid $152 when it launched and I'm good until Nov. 2022. Not sure I'll keep it after that expires.
I’m glad you took the last line as the joke it was, and I’m also glad you ran with it. Also, your post is way funnier than my throwaway line!
My point was that these streaming services today, even with some price increases, are still much cheaper (adjusting for inflation) than they were decades ago when they were premium channels sold through cable TV companies. To get HBO, Showtime and Disney Channel back in the 1980s would've cost around $90 to $100/month in today's dollars. These same three offerings today as streaming services with more available content, on demand capabilities, etc. are just $37/month (with the Disney price increase starting in December) or even less with ad-supported plans.
Yes, subscribers are paying $10.99/month for the content but also have the option of being "paid" $3/month (via lower $7.99/month ad plan price) to allow Disney+ to run ads.
Issue is A streaming service is inexpensive, but there's so many it adds up
Last edited:
If you’re gonna use those kinds of semantics, I suppose we could also say that you have to pay $3 more a month to subsidize the bills of ad tier users (on top of the ads they’re seeing).
It’s an odd way of framing a price increase to suggest that the price difference between the tier with reduced quality of service (advertising) and the price increase with the existing quality of service represents being “paid” the price difference if you accept the lower quality tier of service. That might be a fair way of looking at it had users of the higher tier of service already been paying $10.99 and a reduced price ad tier were introduced at a lower price (or even if the standard tier price were increasing but the ad tier were being introduced at a lower price than the current standard tier, but, of course, the amount “paid” would be the difference between the old standard tier and the new ad tier), but the new ad tier is being sold at the same price as the old standard tier, so there’s no savings (ie no “payment”) in the customer’s balance sheet. If they switch to the ad tier, their balance sheet/budget remains the same. If they remain on the standard tier, their balance sheet/budget shows a new $3 difference on the expenses column. If the new ad tier were cheaper than the old standard tier and the customer switched to the ad tier, that would reflect as a new difference in the surplus column. The latter scenario represents money that had been in the expenses column but is now available for other spending, while the former scenario represents money that had been available for spending but is now in the expenses column until the user changes tiers of service, then it reflects the income/expenses spread prior to the price increase.
I guess a less complicated counter-argument would be that they could just cancel their Disney+ subscriptions and get “paid” $10.99 a month (never mind that the expenses column of their budget only decreases by $7.99). Obviously, that’s a silly way of looking at it, but that’s the point. It’s only $3 of extra spending for taking the ad tier of service from the perspective of changing post price increase, and it reflects the same spending spread from the perspective of pre-price increase.
Who says you need to subscribe to them all? It’s interesting that premium cable was viewed as a luxury. Very few people had HBO and Starz and CineMax… etc. But now in these discussions, people consider it a given that they need to subscribe to every major streamer.
If you make an allowance that I wouldn't necessarily need the 1 gigabit plan without streaming, and the extra money I pay for Hulu + Live TV and a few other services (that used to be "premium channels") is definitely more than I used to pay.
Well, prior to the advent of original programming on HBO, the premiums were all generally interchangeable. They might have a slightly different flavor of the sorts of movies they ran (SkineMax, anyone?), but they all ran movies that were generally out of theaters, maybe or maybe not available for home theater, had probably passed from pay per view exclusivity, generally hadn’t hit the network TV movie of the week block yet and definitely hadn’t hit the independent stations’ (or Fox affiliates’) Saturday afternoon matinee blocks, and were often, but not always, either cash cows or not quite bombs the studios were trying to wring the last little bit of cash out of. The only somewhat different premium channel was (ironically, given the topic of conversation in this thread) Disney Channel before it dropped the premium aspect.
Each of the streaming services (well, most, anyway) have back catalog content that have dedicated fandoms (think The Office or Parks and Rec) or original programs with pretty vocal followings that people in your social circle are probably watching. If you want to watch all the shows your friends are talking about, you’ll probably need to be subscribed to Disney+ (For Marvel and Star Wars shows), Hulu, Netflix, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple TV+, and possibly HBO Max and Amazon Prime. And that’s just for “social TV” (or rather, “peer pressure TV”), you’ll probably want to be signed up for one or two niche streaming services if you want anime, something more family friendly, sports, British television, in depth documentaries, or live local TV sans antenna.
It can add up but so could getting HBO, Showtime, Disney Channel, Cinemax, Playboy Channel, The Movie Channel, etc. through your cable provider decades ago.
Streaming services, even if you subscribe to several of then, can still be much less expensive by comparison.
We just have Disney and will do one once in a while if a movie we want to see shows up. It was great when NF had actual third party movies, so you could get all kinds of studios.
The content has a set retail value which Disney feels is $10.99/month and customers are free to choose that plan if they want to. Disney is also giving customers an option to choose a plan that allows Disney to run ads (up to four minutes per hour, at least initially) and in return will "pay" subscribers who choose that plan $3/month via a lower $7.99/month price.
Some here have suggested the ad-supported plan should be "free" (Disney essentially "paying" them the full price of the plan) but those numbers don't work for Disney which is why they are only willing to "pay" subscribers the $3/month at this point.
Whether or not ANY of these Disney plans are worth it is entirely up to the subscriber. It's their choice.
If you have all these streaming services, ostensibly because there’s at least one show on each you want to watch, you are watching AT LEAST 8 shows at once? When do these people find time to work, cook, and exercise (and also talk to their friends about the shows)?
It’s okay to miss out on some crappy show your friends is watching on Paramount+
Yeah, but there’s more content available than there was back then. Generally, you didn’t need more than one premium channel package to see all the premium channel content you wanted. (Which is why scrambled over the air paid TV was viewed as a viable concept before 1982 or 1983.) Now, you’ll probably need at least two or three just to see the current shows your friends are talking about, because each of the streaming services is heavily investing in original content. And that’s in addition to whatever streaming service has the back catalogue content you want or any niche services you’d like to have.
Well, personally, I’m that cantankerous person who doesn’t watch TV period, even when people I know are like “you should watch this show!” I’ve got TV+ as part of the Apple One bundle, but that’s it.
Edit: And I’d rather not deal with the whole “subscribe and unsubscribe as new content is posted and finished” song and dance if I were to do streaming again. So, even if I weren’t watching 8 shows at once, if I had 8 shows to watch, I’d either be hyper aware of when new seasons start and end and do that song and dance or have 8 streaming services and maybe occasionally watch some fun back catalogue content. Neither sounds especially appealing, and it honestly sounds worse than changing my schedule to tune in for a new network TV program, since those come out weekly and streaming is often (though not always) about binging. (As an aside, is there any context where “binge” is a healthy word? It almost always indicates some degree of mental health issue [eating disorder, substance abuse, lack of regulatory function, etc.], so I kinda feel like “binge-watching” isn’t a concept we should be normalizing.)
Last edited:
It will all depend on viewing desires. If someone wanted HBO and Disney Channel (for the kids) back in the 1980s, it would've cost around $60 or more per month in today's dollars.
Today, you can get those two (ad-free HBO Max and ad-free Disney+).....
PLUS! Apple TV+
PLUS! Amazon Prime Video
PLUS! Basic Netflix
PLUS! Paramount+ (ad-free)
.....for the same or even less.
Additionally, someone can get all of these without being tied to a cable TV plan, can pick or binge-watch exactly what they want on demand, and then easily subscribe or unsubscribe to these or others as they please.
You don't have to subscribe to them all, but if you attempt to price compare a similar set of services as close to apples to apples as you can, the supposed cost savings of cord cutting are illusory.
A single TV with the cheapest broadband option and the non-4K Netflix is not a realistic comparison to even the most basic DirecTV plan.
Yeah, but you’ve gotta figure that you’re probably going to have a broadband package for ${NOTTV}, even if you don’t cord cut. Rare is the person these days in the US who can afford internet who doesn’t have it (except maybe people who use cell phones exclusively or retirees with no need for it).
Add I said above, it wasn’t meant to be my way of sticking it to Disney! I have no problem paying for tangible stuff.
I smiled when you said you have every Disney title you would ever want , then they keep coming out with new movies.
Marvel Studios’ Phases 5 and 6: Everything We Learned at Comic-Con About the Multiverse Saga
Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige unveiled the Phase 5 slate for the Marvel Cinematic Universe at San Diego Comic-Con.
variety.com