Disney to Pull Movies From Netflix, Launch New Streaming Services

[X--X]

I feel it's just ridiculous the cost of TV series and films on services like iTunes.

No, no, no.... todays blockbusters only make BILLIONS of dollars in profit (per film), more than movies have ever made in the history of the world and actors ONLY make hundreds of millions a year. They can barely survive.

They NEED to charge as much as they do, probably more, otherwise the studios would only have hundreds of millions of pure profits (per film) and not billions.

Please have empathy for the entertainment industry.

They're suffering!

 

[Coffee50]

At that point they will go back to bundled cable deals. I never got why people thought a la carte pricing would end up being cheaper.

I think people figured it would never been this many options!

That being said, the idea of canceling anytime (and restarting) is appealing to people. I know people who just sign up for Netflix when one of those Marvel shows drops (and for Stranger Things), then cancel.

Plus there's the obvious password sharing with family / friends that brings the cost down for many.

I'm sure many people aren't paying for each one of these individual services they have access to.

 

[Rigby]

Yes, it should be pretty clear I'm referring to the cable-like services: Sling, PS Vue, DirecTV NOW and so on. None of them offer 5.1 surround on their channels. Select apps like those you mentioned will offer movies with surround sound. But I want something better than what I'm giving up, not something that takes a few steps back other than select programming on separate apps. $10-$30/month savings is just not worth it (to me). But I'm glad for those that don't care much about surround sound, fully featured DVRs, etc.

I don't really understand. For me subscription services that offer ad-free content on demand are much better than services modeled after the traditional channel-based cable TV that either force me to watch on their schedule or configure a "virtual DVR". I want to just click on what I want to see and done. IP-based streaming provides an individual stream for every user; why would we now want to model streaming services based on the limitations of the old cable technology where everybody shared a limited number of "channels"?

And unless Comcast is not your only source of broadband, their "crummy business practices" are going to get their revenue from you anyway... by upping the broadband rate if enough people drops cableTV. Ultimately, you'll still pay Comcast at least as much PLUS you'll be paying for some combination of streaming services. It is inevitable.

There are some competing ISPs in my area (and more are coming). And so far, Comcast has not raised their Internet fees any more than they always have. I used to have a "basic" cable package. I now pay about the same for just Internet plus some subscriptions, have much better service for my taste, and don't have to haggle with Comcast year after year to keep one of their "discounts" (which should really be the normal price).

Nope. We should feel sorry for ourselves. We wished this change upon ourselves. Some of us think we are "winning" right now but watch what happens when the masses join us. Broadband rate will rise to make up for cableTV revenue losses and we'll be paying more for less programming. Again, it is inevitable.

I don't think that's what's happening. OTT streaming opens up the content provider market, and big cable will not be able to raise prices for the Internet service arbitrarily. They know that, and that's why we see things like AT&T buying DirecTV and Comcast investing a lot in their own streaming service. The difference is that they now have to deal with competition in this area, where before they were the gatekeepers because they controlled the cable packages.

I agree but I'll buy you a new iPhone when either party of government takes such action when they are in control. The last time this kind of entity was broken up was AT&T way back before many on here were born. AT&T learned it's lesson, mergered itself back together again (bigger than ever) and makes the necessary "contributions" to stave off that kind of action from ever happening again. The rest know where to "share the wealth" too. I'd love to see real competition in this and several other industries again. That would be good for us consumers. But- I fear- that ship has long since sailed. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Sadly, I agree. It's really the government's job to prevent the anti-competitive consolidation we are currently seeing, but they are of course deep in the pockets of the megacorps.

 

[macduke]

I’d pay $10/mo to access all Disney content, including Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, ESPN, TV shows, and other Disney movies and cartoons. This could be cool if they don’t mess it up. I’ve always said I’d be willing to pay $30-40/mo for a mega premium NetFlix tier that has tons of movies and TV, but just adding this to everything else would probably be worth it if they do it right. I’d probably just cancel Hulu.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

ESPN? They need that?

 

[Cloudkicker]

Americans can't use a la carte (often called pick & pay in Canada) will make channels add up since it's never been attempted.

They should because its Sink Or Swim Model would weed out crappy cable channels & make them only have the beefiest/most exclusive content, even if it takes down 20-40 existing channels.

Yeah, TNT may start off w/ $4/month... then you notice 6-8 hour weekday blocks of Law & Order reruns w/ only a few exclusive shows & the rates will adjust w/ loss or gain of subscribers.

So a parallel linear 24/7 scheduled channel along w/ an on-demand streaming of Disney movies, Disney studio shows (not ABC's The Middle or Modern Family reruns... that's Warner Bros. & 20th Century Fox respectively) will be *A* service that will one day compete w/ a Paramount Service, Warner Bros. Service, etc. We will have to choose which ones we want based on content... each one absolutely WON'T be $9/month each. Netflix's base rate at launch isn't feesible for the long-term as Hulu & CBS Now (& now Disney) join in as competitors.

Yeah, you may have to subscribe to 10 different services, but you won't have Duck Dynasty blocks followed by filler 48 Hour reruns. A&E may not exist! This, is a good thing!

 

[tgwaste]

Precisely. Many people used the logic "I can get Netflix for $7.99 a month, I don't need cable for $50 a month" ... and now people are finding by the time they subscribe to DirecTVnow, Netflix, and the ala carte stuff they want to add, they're back up spending the $$$ they initially wanted to get away from spending. LOL

I guess... I mean I pay $35 for DTVNOW (100 Channels + HBO) and $10 for netflix. Thats $45 / month. Thats half the price I paid with my Cable.

Soon as Youtube TV has an ATV App, HGTV and HBO Ill be switching from DTV to that due to the Live content.

 

[TheRealAlex]

All these content producers do not want others to stream their content so they are making their own streaming services.

Disney Tried to Buy Netflix the other day. Deal fell through. Now I texted my Broker SELL ALL NETFLIX STOCK ASAP tommrow. The Stock Is gonna drop.

Count the steps in 2 years Max 4 Years time.
#1. Try to buy Netflix (failed)
#2. Pull your content from Netflix
#3. Get all your Media Buddies to pull their content also.
#4. Buy a weak devalued Netflix for Peanuts in 2 years.
#5. Put all your Content back On Netflix and charge Your Media palls a fee to put their content on Netflix.
Now Disney Owns the Cable of the Internet by 2020

 

[randian]

But isn't that what everybody wants? A la carte instead of paying one provider (be it the cable companies or netflix) for things you don't need?

So many say, but they aren't thinking it through. Ala carte will be a lot more expensive, less convenient, and much less broad in the available offerings. I'm sure the shows I enjoy on the smaller channels like Freeform would disappear in an ala carte world. Trying to replicate what you get in cable offerings, even at the base tiers, with streaming services is easily twice the cost, and you'd still have lineup holes, not to mention missing functionality like DVRs.

I don't want to subscribe to 10 different services, that's why I hate narrow services like CBS All Access and this hypothetical Disney service.

 

[Msail30bay]

Pure Madness............ Good lord, HOW MANY streaming services are we going to have and to pay for. How many do we have so far......?? 10 and counting.....

 

[macbeta]

Disney owns the content, and as long as they are not breaching any existing contract, they can choose how they want to deliver said content to end users.

However, I do wonder why a publishing house would want to bear the burden/overhead of maintaining and hosting their own service when they could just let others(Apple, Netflix, whoever) do it for them?

Yep and thanks to uncle Walt's obsession with copyright they own it effectively for ever and ever and ever...

 

[kuwxman]

Netflix seems to become less and less valuable by the year... Pretty soon all they're going to have left is their couple original series, and a plethora of 1990s movies available in the $1.00 DVD bin at Walmart. They keep raising prices yet keep losing content. I have cable TV still (mainly because you can't pry my TiVo from my grips, and I have Hulu. Had Netflix and between raising prices, adding restrictions like streaming to two devices at one time in the same house without paying more, having to pay more for 4K, etc, I ditched them. They're becoming irrelevant with Sling\DirecTVnow\Hulu Live, etc...

Hahahahaha, OK.

 

[bopajuice]

Lazyboy + tv = profits. Americans don't have the will to resist the studios or providers. We will buy whatever they tell us to.

 

[MacBH928]

as with every competition in capitalism, everyone is going to attempt and profit from this market then many will fail and cease to exist and only a few will survive and control it. It happened with the cellphones, smartphones, PCs, movie studios, web hosts, search engines, basically anything you imagine.

 

[Patolino]

How many streaming services do we need? Wait... Tesla is launching their own!

 

[Ken Linger]

People (mistakenly) thought that "ala carte" meant that "I can choose the 20 stations out of the 500 my cable/Dish/DirecTV offers and pay 20/500 of the price." As others have pointed out, not all channels cost the same to the providers (aka, aggregators) so the true cost is spread across that wide selection. Some channels pay the providers to be carried (eg, shopping networks) and other channels are only available with the "parent" channel (Biography with A&E). the "tiers" plan would probably have worked (saying you can add the "sports" tier or the "adventure" tier, etc.) except that the providers liked to mix things up to force you to buy tiers you didn't want (only way to get "SciFy" was through the "Sports Tier" which may or may not appeal to you but you have to admit--they're completely different).

We can complain and moan all we want but the reality is that people speak with their dollar. If people swarm to these services (and keep them for a sufficient duration) then it will both inspire more networks to make the same change AND keep the prices high or even raise them. If people say "enough is enough; I'm picking my 3 favorite streaming channels and that's it" then prices will drop. But saying "no way" but actually subscribing just tells them that they made a great choice.

Shows like Honey Boo Boo and Bridezillas and Cake Wars may all get enough viewers today to pay for their incredibly cheap programming but are people willing to shell out $10 a month for each of those channels? $5? Anything more than $0? I'm sure the day will come where we'll find out. If some shows can make the same proportions of income for what they put into it as Game of Thrones, well, then that cheap programming is a lower-risk investment. There's a reason there's a lot more garbage on TV than actual well written shows. People ARE watching them. We'll just have to find out if they're still willing to do so when they can see the line item price each month for the low-end programming (instead of being hidden in a "everything but the sink" package).

 

[AlexH]

Everyone wants a piece of the subscription bonanza. Feels like a bubble to me.

 

[ZeRoLiMiT]

I have Plex and I am happy with my Plex Server! Screw Netflix!!!

 

[tonyr6]

Netflix is commiting suicide. With all the content disappearing they will be nothing left to watch. Not everyone likes there original programming. I don't because mist of it is mature. Netflix can make more general programming but right now the kiddie stuff is only about 15% which is nothing.

Disney going away is way worse than fox content. I hope Netflix goes under and becomes the next blockbuster they deserve it with there bone head moves.

 

[hick9]

Quality vs Quantity. I prefer Quality and willing to pay more for it. The cable boxes, contracts, lousy support, DVR, skipping commercials, and you still have to pay extra for Netflix, Amazon, HBO, etc. Price is only one part of the user experience.

I totally agree. I would rather pay for exactly what I want even if it costs the same. Everyone's viewing choices are very unique. Why pay for ESPN if you never watch that type of thing. I dropped Satellite and pay one third of what I did and I get more programming that suits me. I only watch Hockey so I subscribe to NHL package. Now I get every game instead of the occasional game that used to come on Satellite. I also prefer my AppleTV interface over what the satellite box had.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Disney very well knows that they could make a LOT of money with their upcoming streaming service.

Imagine being able to stream on-demand essentially Disney's entire movie and TV show library--it would be a gold mine for Disney fans. I would not be surprised that this on-demand service could be available even to cable and satellite customers, too. I also think Disney may soon offer a standalone version of WatchESPN for around $12.00/month, which will allow "over the top" users to stream all ESPN channels.

As for it affecting Apple--not a chance. In fact, Apple TV users could get a free 60-day trial of the service, too.

 

[EliasM]

eddy cue explains it perfectly (skip to 33:54 and then 35:00)

Thanks for the link. It doesn't really answer my question, though. There's the rights issue, there's the standards issue, but the question remains: why is no-one able to solve these problems?

Of course I know the answer: money. No-one wants to give up total control over their piece of the cake.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Cold and ugly truth is that piracy is a service problem for the most part.

Make people jump through hoops and they look for easier ways.

Turns out piracy fixes almost all service problems and with a little bit of "internet street" smartness you're not even at that much of a risk that Average Joe feels like paying three or four times the price of a cheap VPN service just to be legitimate, a value that isn't immediately felt, hell if even that...

But sure, keep ignoring this.

DRM, fragmentation, time limits, restricted device access, ugly UIs and content that constantly changes surely will help a lot!

Way to innovate.

Glassed Silver:ios

 

[Sevendaymelee]

I own all the best Disney movies. No need for it here.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

I want another monthly "subscription" like I want a hole in the head. I have to process this one for awhile...

People say that, but I think it's great!

I have several holes in my head. One for eating and breathing, another two for smelling and breathing, a couple for hearing, two more for seeing, and a crapload of tiny ones for hair growth, and for my pores breathing.

Those last ones may be considered holes in my skin, though.