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 Streaming Service Will Be Priced 'Substantially Below' Netflix at Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
that would be the only one reason I would subscribe just for a month : to watch Song of the South.
So this. Why they don’t do this is inexplicable. They’re sitting on veritable streaming goldmines.
At launch. So the promo will end sometime soon. This surely will be an issue when the services will continuing fighting for exclusive content and the consumer has to sign more and more memberships as most price rates increase over time.
Last edited:
You assume their OTT offering is intended to be a viable business. There’s a theory (shared by me) that it currently is just a negotiating lever with cable providers.
And it is not only the content which Netflix directly produces... but access to everything else they can show on their streaming-service which is included in the monthly fee.
Netflix has literally over 40 quality new shows. Sorry, but that body of relevant work is something that Disney will never touch. It's the reason Apple recognizes their true competition and is following suit.
[doublepost=1510679583][/doublepost]
They would be in violation with Satellite and Cable providers which would cost them billions.
[doublepost=1510679583][/doublepost]
They would be in violation with Satellite and Cable providers which would cost them billions.
I could not agree more! Disney is gonna flop with that idea of their dedicated streaming service!
And its done really badly.. with apparently only approx 20,000 subscribers. This is v bad considering the damage doing this has done to their relationships with the likes of sky tv
I’ve not seen any info on how it’s doing.
We’ve had it a while now and it’s probably 50/50 whether we watch Netflix or disneylife when my daughter wants something.
For kids it’s better than Netflix as the original shows are much better quality - Netflix make some terrible kids stuff.
The downside for Disney is my daughter won’t be a child forever so if they migrate to include all their content it may sustain our custom for longer.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
For what price?
I know it's easy for us to decide that we should get everything Disney has for whatever price we want to imagine but try the same by subbing in Apple...
If Apple were smart, they would include everything under their umbrella for one low price - including desktops, laptops, iPhone, iPad and Watch. This would expand their audience and attract more Apple customers.
See how that works? As soon as we swap in Apple in place of a non-Apple entity, it makes us rethink the value of a company's offerings. If we can do that with Apple's products, why can't we do the same with Disney's offerings? And thus, just as we can accept Apple pricing their offerings at whatever Apple wants for their offerings, we should be able to extend the same mentality to other companies wanting to price their offerings at where they think they should be. The world doesn't work very well if only Apple is deserving of full value for their products.
We're all familiar with CBS being a "channel" that broadcasts linear content on a predetermined schedule.
But CBS All Access "the service" gives you on-demand access to over 100 different TV series with thousands of episodes.
I agree that it should cost less than Netflix. And it actually does. It's only $6 a month.
I guess people need to look at the list of shows that CBS All Access has and figure out if they want to pay for it.
BTW... I'm not defending CBS here. I'm just saying CBS All Access isn't a "channel" any more than Netflix is a "channel"
Last edited:
That depends on what they include. If its just Disney titles agreed. If they include ABC originals and ESPN content then they are moving closer to parity on variety. Disney is huge, they just split into a handful of subsidiaries.
[doublepost=1510692600][/doublepost]
Bandwidth is a lot cheaper than hardware.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This right here. If I can get Disney for the kids and ESPN for myself, then I’m in.
The only reason I still have Netflix because my kids watch those Disney shows over and over again and also Stranger Things. Once Disney is live, I’m switching to them and only reactivate the Netflix one month every year when Stranger Things is out.
Disney is one of the most evil corporations in history, I wouldn't pay a penny to watch anything they produce.
We're all familiar with CBS being a "channel" that broadcasts linear content on a predetermined schedule.
But CBS All Access "the service" gives you on-demand access to over 100 different TV series with thousands of episodes.
I agree that it should cost less than Netflix. And it actually does. It's only $6 a month.
I guess people need to look at the list of shows that CBS All Access has and figure out if they want to pay for it.
BTW... I'm not defending CBS here. I'm just saying CBS All Access isn't a "channel" any more than Netflix is a "channel"
A channel is this thing that offers hundreds of shows, of which most people only want to watch upwards of 5 (normally closer to 1 or 2).
Lets name the shows I want to watch on CBS All Access:
- StarTrek Discovery
- Big Bang Theory
Sounds like a channel.
Lets name all the shows I want to watch on Netflix:
- StarTrek: The Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, Enterprise
- Orange Is the New Black
- BoJack Horseman
- Nurse Jackie
I could go on, but that's already 7. It's quite a bit more than a channel. It's much more akin to a full blown TV service, competing with Comcast or DirectTV.
For CBS All Access to be priced reasonably with respect to what it is, it should be closer to $2-3/month. Of course, nobody wants to have a tiny monthly bill like that - that's just annoying. They should do what every other channel does and just put their content in a larger service like Netflix, Comcast, or DirectTV Now.
Yeah, “at launch.” Hook people in, spike the price.
No thanks. As long as Disney eventually release movies for rent or download at more reasonable prices*, I will consider the occasional peek. If they go to streaming only, I am out.
If I enjoy a movie or tv show enough, I want to own it and play without an internet connection.
*Not $19.99 to own digital. Even $14.99 is too much.
No thanks. As long as Disney eventually release movies for rent or download at more reasonable prices*, I will consider the occasional peek. If they go to streaming only, I am out.
If I enjoy a movie or tv show enough, I want to own it and play without an internet connection.
*Not $19.99 to own digital. Even $14.99 is too much.
I was just saying CBS All Access is more of an "online service" than simply a "channel"
Remember what you said in your first comment? "$7/month for one channel"
You should have said "$7 a month for one company's limited selections of on-demand programming"
That would have been more apt.
When I hear the word "channel" I think of those things we still have on cable TV.
So no... I don't think of Netflix or CBS all Access as "channels"
They are services.
Right, and perpetuate the system we've been suffering under since the 1980s? Concentrating the programming in the hands of a few is not the answer. CBSAA and Disney have the right idea. And indeed it's the same one that Amazi, Netflix, and now Hulu are following -- create original programming that appeal to an audience which justifies their subscription fee.
HBO started out like Netflix -- essentially a movie aggregator company, making licensing deals with studios to offer an ever changing catalogue of films and old TV series. Both required additional fees to access them. In the case of HBO, it was a substantial premium over an already expensive cable bill. Eventually there were carbon copies of HBO which is when they started expanding into expensive original programming, yet today they are still an expensive add-on to a cable package, but people still choose it because of the compelling original content. The Netflix DVD rental business effectively subsidized Netflix streaming service, a choice HBO did not have, and now billions of dollars in loans support their entire operation, one that is going to force them to increase fees as licensors pull their product.
Now that studios are taking their programming back, the licensed offerings Netflix and Amazon, and especially Hulu offer, are going to get smaller, and they will be increasingly defined by their original programming, just as the old networks were. Once CBS takes back their catalogue, 5 of those 7 shows you watch will be on CBSAA, and the balance will shift. Not to mention the original programming they are adding to compete in that space.
This is all excellent for the customer. Instead of an expensive package of shows which they mostly don't watch, they will pick and choose from services that has the content they want. If a service doesn't offer a good enough deal, or compelling product, it will fail. So we'll have more choice for the money and likely better product. Even if it all ends up costing about the same as a monthly cable bill, wouldn't you rather have the choice of choosing the programming you want to see for that money rather than subsidizing something you never watch? Moreover, the viewers have the power to make or break a programmer by simply cancelling the service, unlike the basic cable model which exists now, in what is essentially a monopoly.