Here netflix is 12$ month for the cheapest, 18$ for the most expensive, cable is only 5$ a month. So ye canceling cable is not worth it, and netflix is extremely expensive if you compare to cable. We have both, netflix and cable. But what is not on Netflix, still is downloaded. So who loses here? Actually only the companies that deny netflix access. Besides even if we wanted hulu, not available, netflix is the only streaming service you can get here....so not my loss i have to download most movies/series, if i can't get it legally, you have to get it somehow.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney to Pull Movies From Netflix, Launch New Streaming Services
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here netflix is 12$ month for the cheapest, 18$ for the most expensive, cable is only 5$ a month. So ye canceling cable is not worth it, and netflix is extremely expensive if you compare to cable. We have both, netflix and cable. But what is not on Netflix, still is downloaded. So who loses here? Actually only the companies that deny netflix access. Besides even if we wanted hulu, not available, netflix is the only streaming service you can get here....so not my loss i have to download most movies/series, if i can't get it legally, you have to get it somehow.
Been happily subscribed for a few months here as well. Originally just took up the 7 day free trial to watch Tron with my 10yo (when CGI was NEW!) and wound up staying for the convenience of not having to dig out the BluRays for Pixar shorts and the like. Even rewatched The Black Hole for the first time in decades - it's not held up
Throw in music soundtracks (hello Fantasia and Fantasia 2K), Clone Wars & Rebels and off line caching for car/tablet use and I'm impressed with it. Only complaint is Dolby Digital 2.0 soundtracks rather than 5.1 where the original films had 5.1. For £5 a month Disney Life has proved its worth alongside Netflix, Prime, Apple Music & Audible.
And I'm still spending WAY less than I did on Sky for considerably more content. Streaming FTW.
It's the same with vegans and vegetarians, spend ten minutes in their company and they feel the need to let you know about their eating habits (and I'm vegetarian, we're terrible).
How weird. I go from using my own server streaming films to using Netflix because it’s much more convenient. Then stuff like this happens and I’m catapulted back to my original setup. Folk - I think it’s just easier getting an external drive, filling it with films you like, and using PLEX to stream it around your home.
Sigh... this is why I dropped Netflix and don't subscribe to other streaming services: It's very hard to know what's available where.
It's getting to the point where pirating movies is looking attractive again.
And how glad I was when I had stopped torrenting a few years back. What a major face palm news. What's next? Individual streaming services for each studio. Heck... different streaming services for various branches of Disney itself?
I don't know what the long term solution is, but the current model is obviously not sustainable. Consumers are constantly held at ransom with content being moved around randomly even as they pay that same amount?
Maybe one global library where people pay some cents per viewing? Or per title for infinite views? Something where all the content can be available
I’ve always wondered that too, and what it is, but then again I don’t think “cord cutting” is needed in the UK.
I honestly feel back for some parts of America with their lack of competing products. It looks so bad if you want internet and TV.
"Disney will launch an ESPN video streaming service that will feature approximately 10,000 MLB, NHL, MLS, collegiate, and tennis sporting events every year."
Great, another America-only streaming service? Netflix already have international contracts so that me in Sweden can watch it. I really doubt this new streaming service will work in Europe. In addition, I don't have the slightest interest in paying for MLB/NHL etc.
Great, another America-only streaming service? Netflix already have international contracts so that me in Sweden can watch it. I really doubt this new streaming service will work in Europe. In addition, I don't have the slightest interest in paying for MLB/NHL etc.
Pretty much. I'm resigned to just voting with my wallet and accepting I'll just have to miss out on some things, as I'm fed up of companies like this trying to work out the best way of extracting the most money from my wallet. Thankfully there's very little Disney stuff I actually give a damn about so..
Because the cost to produce music is trivial compared to the cost to produce movies and television.
[doublepost=1502272178][/doublepost]
Apple already does all of that.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205321
Last edited:
I'll stick with Netflix and HBO Now. Amazon Prime throws plenty of content out there as well.
I will not be expanding to new service providers because the value isn't there. I don't watch sports so there's that as well.
I will not be expanding to new service providers because the value isn't there. I don't watch sports so there's that as well.
I'm fine to pay for music, movies, tv, whatever. Paying for art isn't a problem for me.
But surely this kind of content fragmentation across monthly subscriptions eventually pushes people back into piracy? I'm not saying that's what I want to do, I'm saying that it's a shame that the media companies can't see that this is making piracy more and more inevitable.
I currently pay for Apple music, Amazon Prime, Netflix. I'm done with paying more for what could be available in one place.
But surely this kind of content fragmentation across monthly subscriptions eventually pushes people back into piracy? I'm not saying that's what I want to do, I'm saying that it's a shame that the media companies can't see that this is making piracy more and more inevitable.
I currently pay for Apple music, Amazon Prime, Netflix. I'm done with paying more for what could be available in one place.
Last edited:
Netflix is becoming the largest studio in the world. They are on target to have 60 original series' this year. 60! They've vowed to soon hit a point where 50% of all content is exclusive.
It started because of their fights over licensing fees from major studios so they wanted to be self-sufficient.
Now Netflix is such a competitive threat as a content creator that the situation will only get worse. They are literally stealing talent from the studios for their originals.
I laugh as all these other studios start services and say, "Who would pay for only one single studios' limited catalog?" But then I realize that Netflix is slowly tricking us into doing exactly that.
As an indie filmmaker, this all needs a consumer-friendly change or there will be no modern delivery platform for a film that isn't greenlit by a major company.
It started because of their fights over licensing fees from major studios so they wanted to be self-sufficient.
Now Netflix is such a competitive threat as a content creator that the situation will only get worse. They are literally stealing talent from the studios for their originals.
I laugh as all these other studios start services and say, "Who would pay for only one single studios' limited catalog?" But then I realize that Netflix is slowly tricking us into doing exactly that.
As an indie filmmaker, this all needs a consumer-friendly change or there will be no modern delivery platform for a film that isn't greenlit by a major company.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Or, just roll your own and keep your peanuts too. Would anyone argue that Disney as a brand is NOT at least as well known as Netflix? If things would go as you suggest, the Netflix brand would be damaged, ultimately associated with the cheapest remaining content that it still can afford to show after #2 & #3.
Netflix also has the long term associations with "cheap" or "cheapest." When they tried to raise their price even $1 per month, there was significant backlash. If I'm Disney (or many others), why do I want to own that brand? If I buy it and want what I perceive to be "fair" price for my content now added back to it (#5), I'm probably jacking the price to $15-$20/month minimum (especially if other Studios are drawn back in and looking for a slice too). Could any remaining Netflix loyalty tolerate the price doubling or more? Especially after #2 & #3 for some period of time?
Or again, I just use my own, very-well-known brand and roll it out at whatever price I want and nobody is surprised that I want an HBO-like premium for my very popular catalog of content.
An aside: I perceive this is the very same issue that conflicts with the fantasy of Apple "just buying Netflix." Why does Apple want Netflix? If Apple gets in the game, they'll want their Apple margin. Netflix pricing won't support that. So an Apple Netflix is probably a much higher priced Netflix. Or Apple can try to get the content owners to give them a fat discount to fit the Apple margin into current Netflix prices. But what would that do? More of what is happening with Netflix now. Content owners already wanting "more money" defect to other services that will pay up or roll their own (where they can get 100% of the revenues for their content).
The main issue with Netflix is that they are somewhat married to dirt cheap monthly pricing. Netflix did a great job over a long time of associating "$8" with their brand. Now the playing field is evolving where as little as a single traditional channel thinks they can get $6/month for just their portion of all programming. Many others are following (some are leading). What Netflix needs is an ability to RAISE monthly pricing so that it can be top bidder for desirable content. But big chunks of it's base freaks at even a $1/month increase. That collision can't end well. Either Netflix has got to be able to get more money out of us consumers OR those with desirable content are going to take it elsewhere where they can get paid what they believe it is worth.
It seems the only way Netflix "wins" this battle is if the masses refuse to pay more for content. However, the masses have already shown they'll pay a lot more to stream select content via other offerings on the market. If I'm Netflix, I'm probably thinking about more tiers of service, where I can keep an <$10 tier for the price sensitive but have an over and probably well-over $10 tiers in which more expensive content is made available... just like classic bronze, silver, gold tiers of cable, which existed in part for the very same issue.
Else, expect other desirable content to leave Netflix for greener pastures. More simply: Netflix must pay up or watch desirable content go elsewhere. Where does Netflix get the money to pay up? For long-term viability, it has to come from us consumers via higher pricing.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Every content creator is going to want their slice of the "new model." Every content creator creates something they believe is valuable. It has traditionally been something they can sell someone(s) to give them money for their efforts. If the "old model" is going to fully transition to some "new model", there's potential for every content creator to offer their own streaming service app... and perhaps more than one.
We may think- or even wish- for some bundling to keep this from getting way out of hand, but from their perspective, bundling means having to share revenues with bundling partners. If they roll their own and people subscribe, they keep 100% of whatever they charge for access. What would you do if you were them?
We'll eventually end up with as many streaming services as viable, meaning as many as can be supported by enough people subscribing to them. Look at a "channel" like the WWE as an example. Yes, it has passionate fans so it's relative success is no surprise but historically that's been content available for just a few hours for 1 or 2 nights per week plus regular pay-per-views. They took the plunge on a streaming option and it seems to be working for them. How long until there is a Kardashian channel? Real Housewives? Every individual sport... or league... or team... or player channel?
Conceptually, al-a-carte leads to that level of granularity. It works if enough people pay for it to justify continuing to support it as a separate "feed." For all of the collective whine about the traditional option, particularly "200 channels that include 180 channels I never watch", someone(s) ARE watching those 180 channels. Eyeball counts are what sell commercials on those channels. No eyeballs = No commercials revenues = no channel. So whatever content is on those 180 channels that "I never watch" is all potential fodder for streaming apps/programming too. And if enough people actually do watch that, it survives as a channel/app/show via individual subscription.
Now where is the fishing programming subscription app? Where's the silent pictures subscription app? And on and on.
Madness? No- just classic supply & demand. Apparently we are demanding more and more fragmentation such that the players are finding they can create new revenue streams by feeding the demand in this way. So the answer to your question is "as many as the market will bear" which, is probably far more than are already available now.
Last edited:
that's actually a concern. In 5 or 10 years there won't be an real outlet for indie film and TV makers. Other than YouTube, but the way they are currently screwing over their creators, not even convinced that would be viable option in the future.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Because that "burden/overhead" is not that hard/complicated. Amateurs are bearing a comparable burden/overhead via vehicles like youtube & vimeo for next to nothing in total cost and- presumably- very little trouble. There's not some great difficulty in hosting files, billing & authentication.
And by bearing that burden/overhead, they get to keep up to 100% of the revenues instead of splitting it with an Apple, Netflix or whoever.
Put yourself in their shoes. What do you do? Cut Apple in at their 15%-30% right off the top which should put countless millions in Apple's coffers for hosting/overhead for the Disney content? Or take a fraction of what you would give to such a partner, roll your own hosting/distribution/overhead and keep most of those millions for yourself?
The question here is not what would I (consumer) like or what would I (Apple fan) like but what makes the most money for the entities with something to sell. If they can make more money by hosting with an Apple or Netflix, they go that way. But obviously they don't- or don't think they can- so they are rolling their own. If they are wrong, they can come back to an Apple or Netflix later. If they are right, they enjoy the added (many) millions in revenues NOT being shared with such partners.
Last edited:
For most NORMAL people a $1 or $3 monthly increase for something we like is nothing. People spend $10 a day on Starbucks Coffee and they aren't hurting for business. There will always be a vocal minority of people who complain about the price of something no matter what it is. The same people who complained about Netflix raising their price by a lousy dollar are the same trolls who complain that Netflix has nothing to watch. Netflix will eventually raise their price.
Of course, the thing most people forget to include in this discussion are the equipment rental fees from the cable company that jack up the price beyond the stated amount. My $99/mo. Verizon FIOS TV + internet plan is more like $170/mo by the time you tack on 3 receivers, including the whole-house DVR option.
I can add a lot of these types of packages for just the $70/mo equipment rental charges I'll be saving. (And yes, there's an up-front cost to provide my own equipment, but I'll make that back in just a few months of savings.)
Because Publishers, rightly want to maintain control over their content and how its presented. Once it's on a service like Netflix, Amazon or Apple. They have little control over what other competing content is grouped with it, nor it's placement, nor end user experiences, etc.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
What bonehead moves? They are losing Disney because Disney thinks they can make more money by rolling their own. There is a number there: how much does Disney think it can make on it's own? If Netflix will offer more than that number, Disney probably just re-ups with Netflix and enjoys making more than they thought they could make on their own.
The problem? How does Netflix pay up for that number? They need more revenue to do that. Where do they get their revenue? If we disallow debt and similar for long-term viability, they have to get us consumers to pay Netflix more. Basically, what we pay now is not enough to give Netflix it's target profit AND give Disney enough to stay with Netflix.
Netflix has tried raising prices even $1/month in the past and been pounded with backlash & defections. So, in a manner of speaking, we consumers refusing to pay more to Netflix is basically enabling this suicide you foresee. Else, put on your business hat and answer this: HOW does Netflix pay up for Disney's new number and keep prices where they are?
Yep, and just wait until physical media dies. We're right back where we started. Downloading pirated content on Usenet or torrenting.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Of course counterpoint to this side of the bias is what else one is giving up. All of the cabletv package-like streaming services lack surround sound. If one has assembled a great home theater (popular since way back in the 1990's), sound is a big step back with any of these options. Some want the "immersive" nature of surround sound (that's why they built their home theater) and others don't care about surround.
Similarly, no software DVRs on any of the major services compare to a good "real" DVR (yet). So someone accustomed to the full functionality & benefits of a real DVR are in for a surprise when they think a software DVR is going to be equivalent.
And then there's the issue of generally needing at least some companion apps/subscriptions to fill in some gaps in the cableTV-like streaming services. So that leads to having to hop app-to-app and sometimes box-to-box and giving up the everything available in a single on-screen guide simplicity. It also requires tech training for the less tech-oriented of the household and switches from a relatively simple model of finding something to watch to knowing what you want to watch and then deducing where that programming is probably available.
So the clash of monthly savings comes with both a legit side (the hated proprietary STB lease fees) vs. the tangible tradeoffs like surround sound, full-feature DVR functionality and non-techie simplicity. In my own whole house case, the savings is less than $30/month if I still want to get everything I want and am willing to sacrifice surround and useful DVR functionality. At that pace, it's only about 3 years of such sacrifices to have enough for a new Apple iPhone.
Broadband caps are increasingly enforced- wonder why. I know that since there is a complete dependency on the broadband pipe for ANY of the streaming options to deliver content, the owners of those pipes- generally cable companies- are going to make up for lost revenues so they ultimately still get theirs. For many there are no other choices. Personally I happen to live in an area that DOES have 2 choices for broadband... but both have cableTV-like services. So I expect both to put the pinch on their broadband base as they increasingly feel the losses of cableTV revenues.
Of course, homes with more TVs that can't work around proprietary STB leases can find more monthly savings while tolerating those same sacrifices.
Stop putting your faith in these companies. 6TB drives are a few hundred bucks, MakeMKV is free, and PLEX is free.